| Message ID | 1406206825-15590-4-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 02:00:09PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote: > From: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org> > > acpi_wakeup_address is used on x86 as the address bios jumps into > when machine wakes up from suspend. As arm64 does not have such a > bios this mechanism will be provided by other means. But the define > is still required inside the acpi core. > > Introduce a null stub for acpi_suspend_lowlevel as this is also > required by core. This will be filled in when standards are > defined for arm64 ACPI global power states. > > Reviewed-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 12 ++++++++++++ > arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 7 +++++++ > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h > index e8581ea..44b617f 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h > @@ -36,6 +36,18 @@ static inline bool acpi_has_cpu_in_madt(void) > return 1; > } > > +/* Low-level suspend routine. > + * > + * ACPI S-states for ARM64 have to be defined > + * and approved before doing anything else, maybe > + * we need update the ACPI spec, here we > + * just introduce function and macro needed by > + * ACPI core as IA64 did, and revisit them when > + * the spec is ready. > + */ > +extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void); > +#define acpi_wakeup_address 0 > + > #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */ > > #endif /*_ASM_ACPI_H*/ > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c > index ac78e4e..f5a10b5 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c > @@ -95,3 +95,10 @@ static int __init parse_acpi(char *arg) > return 0; > } > early_param("acpi", parse_acpi); > + > +/* > + * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend. > + * > + * TBD when ARM/ARM64 starts to support suspend... > + */ > +int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void); Shouldn't this should be intialised to NULL explicitly? Thanks, Mark.
On 2014-7-24 23:34, Mark Rutland wrote: [...] >> early_param("acpi", parse_acpi); >> + >> +/* >> + * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend. >> + * >> + * TBD when ARM/ARM64 starts to support suspend... >> + */ >> +int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void); > > Shouldn't this should be intialised to NULL explicitly? Yes, as ARM64 does not support suspend, initialize it to NULL will be fine, will update in next version. Thanks Hanjun
On 24/07/14 14:00, Hanjun Guo wrote: > From: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org> > > acpi_wakeup_address is used on x86 as the address bios jumps into > when machine wakes up from suspend. As arm64 does not have such a > bios this mechanism will be provided by other means. But the define > is still required inside the acpi core. > > Introduce a null stub for acpi_suspend_lowlevel as this is also > required by core. This will be filled in when standards are > defined for arm64 ACPI global power states. > > Reviewed-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 12 ++++++++++++ > arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 7 +++++++ > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h > index e8581ea..44b617f 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h > @@ -36,6 +36,18 @@ static inline bool acpi_has_cpu_in_madt(void) > return 1; > } > > +/* Low-level suspend routine. > + * > + * ACPI S-states for ARM64 have to be defined > + * and approved before doing anything else, maybe > + * we need update the ACPI spec, here we > + * just introduce function and macro needed by > + * ACPI core as IA64 did, and revisit them when > + * the spec is ready. > + */ > +extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void); > +#define acpi_wakeup_address 0 > + While I understand that this is temporary solution, but will this be sufficient to make sure we don't enter acpi_suspend_enter ? A brief look at acpi_suspend_enter showed access to write to ACPI_BITREG_SCI_ENABLE which might just explode. But if you are sure that it will not be executed, then it should be fine for now. Regards, Sudeep
On 2014-7-29 2:28, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 24/07/14 14:00, Hanjun Guo wrote: >> From: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org> >> >> acpi_wakeup_address is used on x86 as the address bios jumps into >> when machine wakes up from suspend. As arm64 does not have such a >> bios this mechanism will be provided by other means. But the define >> is still required inside the acpi core. >> >> Introduce a null stub for acpi_suspend_lowlevel as this is also >> required by core. This will be filled in when standards are >> defined for arm64 ACPI global power states. >> >> Reviewed-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org> >> Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org> >> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> >> --- >> arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 12 ++++++++++++ >> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c | 7 +++++++ >> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h >> index e8581ea..44b617f 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h >> @@ -36,6 +36,18 @@ static inline bool acpi_has_cpu_in_madt(void) >> return 1; >> } >> >> +/* Low-level suspend routine. >> + * >> + * ACPI S-states for ARM64 have to be defined >> + * and approved before doing anything else, maybe >> + * we need update the ACPI spec, here we >> + * just introduce function and macro needed by >> + * ACPI core as IA64 did, and revisit them when >> + * the spec is ready. >> + */ >> +extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void); >> +#define acpi_wakeup_address 0 >> + > > While I understand that this is temporary solution, but will this be > sufficient to make sure we don't enter acpi_suspend_enter ? > > A brief look at acpi_suspend_enter showed access to write to > ACPI_BITREG_SCI_ENABLE which might just explode. But if you are sure that > it will not be executed, then it should be fine for now. I think it will not be executed, since ARM64 do not support S1 and S3 in ACPI for now, and that state will not defined, then acpi_suspend_enter will not be called. Thanks Hanjun
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h index e8581ea..44b617f 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h @@ -36,6 +36,18 @@ static inline bool acpi_has_cpu_in_madt(void) return 1; } +/* Low-level suspend routine. + * + * ACPI S-states for ARM64 have to be defined + * and approved before doing anything else, maybe + * we need update the ACPI spec, here we + * just introduce function and macro needed by + * ACPI core as IA64 did, and revisit them when + * the spec is ready. + */ +extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void); +#define acpi_wakeup_address 0 + #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */ #endif /*_ASM_ACPI_H*/ diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c index ac78e4e..f5a10b5 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c @@ -95,3 +95,10 @@ static int __init parse_acpi(char *arg) return 0; } early_param("acpi", parse_acpi); + +/* + * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend. + * + * TBD when ARM/ARM64 starts to support suspend... + */ +int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);