From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 16:09:51 -0800
Subject: [PATCH v6 2/2] ARM hibernation / suspend-to-disk
In-Reply-To: <1393545478-14908-3-git-send-email-sebastian.capella@linaro.org>
References: <1393545478-14908-1-git-send-email-sebastian.capella@linaro.org>
 <1393545478-14908-3-git-send-email-sebastian.capella@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <530FD3CF.2040900@codeaurora.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 02/27/14 15:57, Sebastian Capella wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h
> index 8756e4b..1079ea8 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h
> @@ -291,6 +291,7 @@ static inline void *phys_to_virt(phys_addr_t x)
>   */
>  #define __pa(x)			__virt_to_phys((unsigned long)(x))
>  #define __va(x)			((void *)__phys_to_virt((phys_addr_t)(x)))
> +#define __pa_symbol(x)		__pa(RELOC_HIDE((unsigned long)(x), 0))

Just curious, is there a reason for the RELOC_HIDE() here? Or
__pa_symbol() for that matter? It looks like only x86 uses this on the
__nosave_{begin,end} symbol. Maybe it's copy-pasta?

I also wonder if anyone has thought about making a __weak
pfn_is_nosave() function so that architectures don't need to implement
the same thing every time. Consolidating those shouldn't be part of this
patch though.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation