From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar) Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 22:26:43 +0530 Subject: [linux-pm] [RFC PATCH v4] ARM hibernation/suspend-to-disk support In-Reply-To: References: <201106072348.44624.rjw@sisk.pl> <20110609154058.GA24424@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4DF0F45A.3030103@ti.com> Message-ID: <4DF0FB4B.3080806@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 6/9/2011 10:14 PM, Frank Hofmann wrote: > > > On Thu, 9 Jun 2011, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > >> On 6/9/2011 9:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 04:30:08PM +0100, Frank Hofmann wrote: >>>> Btw, when testing this I found that generic cpu_suspend seems to be >>>> just >>>> fine for OMAP3; the OMAP platforms though do not at this time use the >>>> generic cpu_suspend/resume for sleep, is it planned to change that ? >>> >>> That's because OMAP was doing changes to their sleep code while I was >>> consolidating the sleep code, and although I asked several times that >>> the OMAP folk should participate in this effort, but evidentally I was >>> unsuccessful in achieving anything in that direction. >>> >> Agreed but the situation at that point was the code was not at >> all in convertible position. Looking at your below comment, >> it's still not :) >> >>> And of course since then it's been forgotten about, and I've given up >>> on that particular aspect. I've also come to the conclusion that OMAP >>> is sufficiently weird (requiring soo much to execute from SRAM) that >>> its hopeless to persue. >>> >> We did discuss this Russell and requested your help here. I guess >> you have already looked at OMAP code from generic suspend >> hooks point of view and the SRAM execution, Errata's seems to >> make you feel it's not going to work. >> Is that what you mean here ? >> >> Regards >> Santosh >> > > Sorry for interjecting ... you're right there's a lot special about > OMAP. What I've been talking about is a rather small(ish) bit. Maybe the > diff illustrates what I mean - use cpu_suspend/resume for the parts of > off-mode save/restore that are non-OMAP-specific. > > Like this (not tested, just for illustration what I mean): > Mostly it won't work. Just replied to your questions. I think you can get the answer on why this change won't work in it's current form. Regards Santosh