Re: On "sh: Consolidate SH-Mobile CPU code in arch/sh/kernel/cpu/shmobile/."

[Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Francesco VIRLINZI
<francesco.virlinzi@st.com> wrote:
> What do you mean with 'page'? I don't see 'page' issue until we don't use
> the TLB

Hehe, sorry for my unclear language. I didn't mean page as memory
management unit. =)

>> No, no code exists at this point. I hope to find some time to hack up
>> a prototype next week. We probably need a couple of iterations before
>> we both are happy so I suspect the interpreter stuff would be 2.6.31
>> material. Is that ok, or do you have any special requirements from
>> your side?
>>
>
> It isn't a real problem for me.
> In February we did our first kernel release with  pm support and I can
> maintain this
> code until the official pm support will be integrated in the kernel after
> that I will (slowly..)
> move our SOCs in the new pm infrastructure.
> Let me say I have my 'recovery' solution therefore the time required
> for investigation/design/prototype isn't a problem.

Good. Sounds like you will be able to spend some time in the future.

>> I also need to focus on fixing up the clock framework
>
> What about clock framework?
> I'd like an integrated support for standby (as I did for hibernation... also
> if I know the standby is more difficult
> than hibernation).

I agree. What more is needed for standby in your opinion?

Cheers,

/ magnus

PS. If you have time, please fix clock framework warning in sh-2.6
introduced by suspend code (i think).