From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: 21cnbao@gmail.com (Barry Song)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 00:55:41 +0800
Subject: [PATCH v3] ARM: vfp: Always save VFP state in vfp_pm_suspend
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=qLawbPdewuKrtu4r1kAaTNhFjZA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1304489790-30126-1-git-send-email-bs14@csr.com>
	<BANLkTi=qLawbPdewuKrtu4r1kAaTNhFjZA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BANLkTimJj6271NT4ULuTLYD1gyg+UAh8vg@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

2011/5/10 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>:
> On 4 May 2011 07:16, Barry Song <bs14@csr.com> wrote:
>> From: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
>>
>> vfp_pm_suspend should save the VFP state any time there is
>> a last_VFP_context. ?If it only saves when the VFP is enabled,
>> the state can get lost when, on a UP system:
>> ? Thread 1 uses the VFP
>> ? Context switch occurs to thread 2, VFP is disabled but the
>> ? ? ?VFP context is not saved to allow lazy save and restore
>> ? Thread 2 initiates suspend
>> ? vfp_pm_suspend is called with the VFP disabled, but the
>> ? ? ?context has not been saved.
>>
>> Modify vfp_pm_suspend to save the VFP context whenever
>> last_VFP_context is set.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccross@android.com>
>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>> Cc: Binghua Duan <binghua.duan@csr.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Rongjun Ying <rongjun.ying@csr.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> ?arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c | ? ?6 ++++++
>> ?1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c b/arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c
>> index bbf3da0..a54c4d6 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c
>> @@ -392,6 +392,12 @@ static int vfp_pm_suspend(struct sys_device *dev, pm_message_t state)
>>
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?/* disable, just in case */
>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?fmxr(FPEXC, fmrx(FPEXC) & ~FPEXC_EN);
>> + ? ? ? } else {
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (last_VFP_context[ti->cpu]) {
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? fmxr(FPEXC, fpexc | FPEXC_EN);
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? vfp_save_state(last_VFP_context[ti->cpu], fpexc);
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? fmxr(FPEXC, fpexc);
>> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? }
>> ? ? ? ?}
>
> I would use
>
> ? ? ? ?} else if () {
>
> ? ? ? ?}
>
> to avoid another level of indentation.
>
> Otherwise the patch looks fine to me (I haven't tested it).
>

looks good to me.

> Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
>
then i will send out v4.