From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: nico@fluxnic.net (Nicolas Pitre)
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 14:09:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [PATCH v5 15/19] ARM: LPAE: Add support for
	cpu_v7_do_(suspend|resume)
In-Reply-To: <1305897667.2788.98.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1304859098-10760-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com>
	<1304859098-10760-16-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com>
	<20110518072737.GC6815@atomide.com>
	<1305897667.2788.98.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1105201407480.14430@xanadu.home>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, 20 May 2011, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 08:27 +0100, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > Do we really need all this ifdef else throughout this series?
> > 
> > I think we already have things in place to do this dynamically
> > like we already do for thumb, smp_on_up, v6 vs v7 and so on.
> 
> By dynamically, do you mean at run-time? We won't be able to compile
> both classic and LPAE in the same kernel, there is just too much
> difference between them (2 vs 3 levels of page tables - LPAE is an
> entirely new format).
> 
> If you mean some simpler macros like what we have for ARM/THUMB to
> reduce the number of lines, I'm fine with it though we don't always have
> a 1:1 mapping between LPAE and non-LPAE instructions.
> 
> Alternatively, I'm happy to create a separate proc-v7lpae.S file.

That would probably be the best option.


Nicolas