From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: rjw@rjwysocki.net (Rafael J. Wysocki)
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 00:15:48 +0100
Subject: [update][PATCH v10 06/21] ACPI / sleep: Introduce
 CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP
In-Reply-To: <5506C93C.704@linaro.org>
References: <1426234469-6434-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <2027737.r7gkxqZ3Xv@vostro.rjw.lan> <5506C93C.704@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <5704037.pUGdJ0Q9hF@vostro.rjw.lan>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Monday, March 16, 2015 08:14:52 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2015?03?14? 05:49, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, March 13, 2015 04:14:29 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >> From: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> >>
> >> ACPI 5.1 does not currently support S states for ARM64 hardware but
> >> ACPI code will call acpi_target_system_state() and acpi_sleep_init()
> >> for device power management, so introduce CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP
> >> and select it for x86 and ia64 only to make sleep functions available,
> >> and also introduce stub function to allow other drivers to function
> >> until S states are defined for ARM64.
> >>
> >> It will be no functional change for x86 and IA64.
> >>
> >> CC: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> >> Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >> Acked-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@cavium.com>
> >> Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org>
> >> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> >> ---
> >>   arch/ia64/Kconfig       | 1 +
> >>   arch/x86/Kconfig        | 1 +
> >>   drivers/acpi/Kconfig    | 4 ++++
> >>   drivers/acpi/Makefile   | 2 +-
> >>   drivers/acpi/internal.h | 4 ++++
> >>   5 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/ia64/Kconfig b/arch/ia64/Kconfig
> >> index 074e52b..e8728d7 100644
> >> --- a/arch/ia64/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/arch/ia64/Kconfig
> >> @@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ config IA64
> >>   	select ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_PC_SERIO
> >>   	select PCI if (!IA64_HP_SIM)
> >>   	select ACPI if (!IA64_HP_SIM)
> >> +	select ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP if ACPI
> >>   	select ARCH_MIGHT_HAVE_ACPI_PDC if ACPI
> >>   	select HAVE_UNSTABLE_SCHED_CLOCK
> >>   	select HAVE_IDE
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/Kconfig b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> >> index b7d31ca..9804431 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/Kconfig
> >> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ config X86_64
> >>   ### Arch settings
> >>   config X86
> >>   	def_bool y
> >> +	select ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP if ACPI
> >
> > One more nit.  If you did
> >
> > +	select ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP if ACPI_SLEEP
> >
> > here (and above for ia64), you'd avoid having to make ACPI_SLEEP
> > depend on ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP which goes somewhat backwards.
> 
> In sleep.c,
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP
> acpi_target_system_state()
> {
> }
> #endif
> 
> and CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP depends on SUSPEND || HIBERNATION,
> which one of them will be enabled on ARM64 so ACPI_SLEEP
> will also enabled too.
> 
> So if we
> 
> +select ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP if ACPI_SLEEP
> 
> and
> 
> +acpi-$(CONFIG_ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP) += sleep.o
> 
> it will lead to errors for acpi_target_system_state() that
> is declared but not defined, so I will keep the code as
> it is, what do you think?

No, we need to hash this out.  Having two different Kconfig options meaning
almost the same thing (ACPI_SLEEP and ACPI_GENERIC_SLEEP) is beyond ugly.

Do you need ACPI_SLEEP on ARM64 at all?


-- 
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.