From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Figa Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 11/17] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the power sequence call in the cpu_pm notifier Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 14:17:14 +0200 Message-ID: <53453A4A.1000704@samsung.com> References: <1396959579-18268-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1396959579-18268-12-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailout2.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.12]:11754 "EHLO mailout2.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932560AbaDIMRU (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Apr 2014 08:17:20 -0400 Received: from eucpsbgm2.samsung.com (unknown [203.254.199.245]) by mailout2.w1.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01(7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTP id <0N3R003H6JGM5QB0@mailout2.w1.samsung.com> for linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 09 Apr 2014 13:17:10 +0100 (BST) In-reply-to: <1396959579-18268-12-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Lezcano , kgene.kim@samsung.com Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, b.zolnierkie@samsung.com, sachin.kamat@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net Hi Daniel, On 08.04.2014 14:19, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > The code to initiate and exit the powerdown sequence is the same in pm.c and > cpuidle.c. > > Let's split the common part in the pm.c and reuse it from the cpu_pm notifier. > > That is one more step forward to make the cpuidle driver arch indenpendant. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano > Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar > Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > --- > arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c | 21 --------------------- > arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++---- > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) [snip] > -static int exynos_pm_suspend(void) > +static void exynos_pm_central_suspend(void) > { > unsigned long tmp; > > /* Setting Central Sequence Register for power down mode */ > - > tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION); > tmp &= ~S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG; > __raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION); > +} > + > +static int exynos_pm_suspend(void) > +{ > + unsigned long tmp; > Shouldn't exynos_pm_central_suspend() be called here in place of the code being moved to that function? Best regards, Tomasz From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: t.figa@samsung.com (Tomasz Figa) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 14:17:14 +0200 Subject: [PATCH V3 11/17] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the power sequence call in the cpu_pm notifier In-Reply-To: <1396959579-18268-12-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> References: <1396959579-18268-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1396959579-18268-12-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Message-ID: <53453A4A.1000704@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Daniel, On 08.04.2014 14:19, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > The code to initiate and exit the powerdown sequence is the same in pm.c and > cpuidle.c. > > Let's split the common part in the pm.c and reuse it from the cpu_pm notifier. > > That is one more step forward to make the cpuidle driver arch indenpendant. > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano > Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar > Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > --- > arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c | 21 --------------------- > arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++---- > 2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) [snip] > -static int exynos_pm_suspend(void) > +static void exynos_pm_central_suspend(void) > { > unsigned long tmp; > > /* Setting Central Sequence Register for power down mode */ > - > tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION); > tmp &= ~S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG; > __raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION); > +} > + > +static int exynos_pm_suspend(void) > +{ > + unsigned long tmp; > Shouldn't exynos_pm_central_suspend() be called here in place of the code being moved to that function? Best regards, Tomasz