From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: yu.c.chen@intel.com (Chen Yu) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 18:02:39 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v3 5/7] PM / Hibernate: Allow arch code to influence CPU hotplug during hibernate In-Reply-To: <7811260.OWJXivZiAP@vostro.rjw.lan> References: <1467125510-18758-1-git-send-email-james.morse@arm.com> <1467125510-18758-6-git-send-email-james.morse@arm.com> <7811260.OWJXivZiAP@vostro.rjw.lan> Message-ID: <57739CBF.2090706@intel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2016?06?29? 08:10, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 03:51:48 PM James Morse wrote: >> Architecture code may need to do extra work when secondary CPUs are >> disabled during hibernate and resume. This may include pushing sleeping >> CPUs into a deeper power-saving state, or influencing which CPU resume >> occurs on. >> >> Define a macro arch_hibernation_disable_cpus(), which defaults to calling >> disable_nonboot_cpus() if undefined. Architectures that need to do extra >> work around these calls can use this to influence disable_nonboot_cpus() >> behaviour. The macro should be defined in asm/suspend.h, and >> ARCH_HIBERNATION_CPUHP should be added to Kconfig. >> >> Signed-off-by: James Morse >> Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki >> Cc: Pavel Machek > As you noted, this could be used to address the x86 issue that Yu is working on, > so I'd like it to go in as the first patch in the series and through the PM tree. > This patch looks friendly for that fix :), thanks. > For the x86 case we'll also need the complementary "enable", so why don't > you add it here and then use it instead of the enable_nonboot_cpus()? > Agreed. Yu