From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: Re: [update][PATCH v10 06/21] ACPI / sleep: Introduce CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:30:04 +0100 Message-ID: <2398042.a98hWjBeFo@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1426234469-6434-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <10995588.scpoK3KRg2@vostro.rjw.lan> <20150317123536.GB14984@red-moon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: Received: from v094114.home.net.pl ([79.96.170.134]:59826 "HELO v094114.home.net.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1752816AbbCQOGL (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Mar 2015 10:06:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20150317123536.GB14984@red-moon> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Lorenzo Pieralisi Cc: "guohanjun@huawei.com" , "hanjun.guo@linaro.org" , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Olof Johansson , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Arnd Bergmann , Mark Rutland , "graeme.gregory@linaro.org" , Sudeep Holla , "jcm@redhat.com" , Marc Zyngier , Mark Brown , Robert Richter , Timur Tabi , Ashwin Chaugule , "suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org"
  • On Tuesday, March 17, 2015 12:35:36 PM Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 03:23:11AM +0000, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > [...] > > > > Do you mean remove CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP and > > > > > > +acpi-$(CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP) += sleep.o > > > > > > as well (also need to remove duplicate #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP in sleep.c if > > > we doing so)? > > > > Well, almost. There is one problem with that, becuase sleep.c contains code > > outside of the ACPI_SLEEP-dependent blocks. That code is used for powering > > off ACPI platforms. > > > > I guess you don't want that code on ARM too, right? > > > > Perhaps we can use ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY for that? ARM64 will be the > > only arch setting it at least for the time being, is that correct? > > HW reduced only platforms are still required to support sleep > states that on arm64 are totally meaningless at present, so I do > not think ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE_ONLY will cut it. > > Factoring out power_off methods from sleep.c ? I know, it is not nicer > since you split the S-states management in multiple files. > > Side note: is the acpi_suspend() function in sleep.c used in the kernel ? No, it isn't. I've just sent a patch to drop it. -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.