From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: how to enable suspend to ram for arm-64 bits Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:21:27 +0100 Message-ID: References: <06a4f0d7-9022-578d-99e0-ddcde31ed895@arm.com> <82ddd0e1-9ecc-5e54-e8ee-86f947fc0ecd@arm.com> <20161018100002.GA4347@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:56134 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753552AbcJRKVa (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Oct 2016 06:21:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20161018100002.GA4347@xo-6d-61-c0.localdomain> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Pavel Machek Cc: Sudeep Holla , yoma sophian , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On 18/10/16 11:00, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > >>> b. in arm64, if some platform has its own suspend flow, couldn't it >>> adopts arm/match-xxx to register its own global suspend method? >>> >> >> No, PSCI is highly recommended. > > Relying on firmware for suspend on x86 was a great disaster, lets not repeat > that mistake. Could you be more elaborate on this ? arm32 has better powermanagement than x86 ever will (see Nokia N900 > for example) -- feel free to copy that code from arm32. OK are you suggesting that pull in all the low level assembly code that are very platform specific in to the kernel ? Sorry, no thanks. We don't want that in the kernel and IMO that's one of the reason why many platforms lacked PM support in the upstream kernel as they were too platform specific and hinders the progress towards single kernel. -- Regards, Sudeep