From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren)
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:40:54 -0600
Subject: [PATCH 4/7] ARM: tegra: add LP1 support code for Tegra124
In-Reply-To: <1381477089.5685.3.camel@jlo-ubuntu-64.nvidia.com>
References: <1381310411-11391-1-git-send-email-josephl@nvidia.com>	
 <1381310411-11391-5-git-send-email-josephl@nvidia.com>	
 <5255E4CD.1050509@wwwdotorg.org>
 <1381477089.5685.3.camel@jlo-ubuntu-64.nvidia.com>
Message-ID: <52581C06.5090707@wwwdotorg.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 10/11/2013 01:38 AM, Joseph Lo wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 07:20 +0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 10/09/2013 03:20 AM, Joseph Lo wrote:
>>> The LP1 suspend procedure is the same with Tegra30 and Tegra114. Just
>>> need to update the difference of the register address, then we can
>>> continue to share the code.
>>> -	.rept (tegra30_sdram_pad_size - tegra114_sdram_pad_address) / 4
>>> +	.rept (tegra124_sdram_pad_address - tegra114_sdram_pad_address) / 4
>>
>> I assume this is intended to reserve enough space to store all the saved
>> registers for the largest table of tegra30_sdram_pad_address,
>> tegra114_sdram_pad_address, tegra124_sdram_pad_address. I count more
>> entries in the existing Tegra114 table than the new Tegra124 table, so
>> I'm not sure this part of the change is correct.
>>
>> Is there no way to do a max(tegra30 size, tegra114 size, tegra124 size)
>> so you don't have to pick manually which size to reserve here?
> 
> I don't have a good way to achieve this, because we may have another new
> SoC that may continue re-use these codes. Hence I need to keep
> maintaining the max() function.

Sure, but adding one entry to the max function is better than manually
calculating the size of each array and performing the max yourself.