All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 3/4] at91 : remove wait_for_interrupt definition
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:07:00 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F4B7FF4.80402@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120227125034.GU22562@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

On 02/27/2012 01:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 03:39:49PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 01/25/2012 01:18 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:56:07AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> All the "wait_for_interrupt" definition are aliases to cpu_do_idle.
>>>> Only the rm9200 has an asm routine to switch to wfi. But the cpu_do_idle
>>>> for this platform has exactly the same asm routine.
>>>>
>>>> arch/arm/mm/proc-arm920.S
>>>> ...
>>>> ENTRY(cpu_arm920_do_idle)
>>>>           mcr     p15, 0, r0, c7, c0, 4           @ Wait for interrupt
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Then it is safe to invoke cpu_do_idle for this platform.
>>>
>>> No it is not.
>>>
>>> Please read Nicolas' post:
>>>
>>> http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20120112.144129.827ae490.en.html
>>>
>>> and think about what "DWB is needed before putting SDRAM into self-refresh
>>> because any subsequent access to SDRAM will force it to resume from
>>> self-refresh state" means.
>>>
>>> Consider that if you _branch_ somewhere else, you _could_ cause a cache
>>> line fetch, which will have to come from SDRAM.
>>
>> Oh, right. I am not familiar with this part, thanks for the clarification.
>>
>>>    From Nicolas' post, it's pretty clear to me that the AT91RM9200 requires
>>> carefully crafted assembly which can't be separated in this way to work,
>>> which I mostly supplied in this mail:
>>>
>>> http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20120109.144443.3626e5a6.en.html
>>
>> Ok, this is what does the patch 4/4, it changes the self-refresh and wfi
>> into an asm routine where cpu_do_idle call is removed. Can I consider by
>> folding 3/4 and 4/4 ? So the buggy cpu_do_idle change won't appear...
>
> So I see your patch is in arm-soc now, inspite of my note that it's
> probably broken.
>
> If it's been tested, then all the asm() stuff in arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> along with the sdram crap can be removed.

Yes, this is what the patch 4/4 does right after, also removing the 
cpu_do_idle. There no more asm routine in pm.c now.

Thanks
   -- Daniel

-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

  reply	other threads:[~2012-02-27 13:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-01-24 23:56 [PATCH 1/4] at91 : coding style fixes Daniel Lezcano
2012-01-24 23:56 ` [PATCH 2/4] at91 : declare header name Daniel Lezcano
2012-01-24 23:56 ` [PATCH 3/4] at91 : remove wait_for_interrupt definition Daniel Lezcano
2012-01-25  0:18   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-25 14:39     ` Daniel Lezcano
2012-02-27 12:50       ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-02-27 13:07         ` Daniel Lezcano [this message]
2012-02-27 14:52           ` Rob Lee
2012-01-24 23:56 ` [PATCH 4/4] at91 : implement the standby function for pm/cpuidle Daniel Lezcano
2012-01-26 16:18 ` at91: pm.h cleanup (was: [PATCH 1/4] at91 : coding style fixes) Nicolas Ferre
2012-01-26 20:33   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-26 23:34     ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-01-27  9:43       ` at91: pm.h cleanup Nicolas Ferre
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-01-17 23:40 [PATCH 0/4] at91 : cleanup pm.h Daniel Lezcano
2012-01-17 23:40 ` [PATCH 3/4] at91 : remove wait_for_interrupt definition Daniel Lezcano
2012-01-18 21:53   ` Ryan Mallon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4F4B7FF4.80402@linaro.org \
    --to=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.