| Message ID | 1372152475-18617-7-git-send-email-josephl@nvidia.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 05:27:50PM +0800, Joseph Lo wrote: > Hooking tegra_tear_down_cpu for Tegra114 for supporting cluster power > down when CPU cluster suspneded in LP2. > > Signed-off-by: Joseph Lo <josephl@nvidia.com> > --- > arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c > index 94e69be..a0668a2 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c > @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ static void tegra_tear_down_cpu_init(void) > tegra_tear_down_cpu = tegra20_tear_down_cpu; > break; > case TEGRA30: > + case TEGRA114: > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC)) > tegra_tear_down_cpu = tegra30_tear_down_cpu; This is getting a little weird. Suppose I want to build a Tegra114 only kernel. With the above code it means the tegra_tear_down_cpu won't be hooked because ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC isn't selected. Perhaps tegra30_tear_down_cpu() should be built unconditionally so that it's always available? I suspect that something similar will need to be done for future chips too, further complicating matters. There are other alternatives like adding another Kconfig symbol which doesn't cover all of Tegra30 but only code shared with Tegra114 (and possible future chips) or building sleep-tegra30.S if either one of the ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC or ARCH_TEGRA_114_SOC symbols is selected. Thierry
On Thu, 2013-06-27 at 18:13 +0800, Thierry Reding wrote: > * PGP Signed by an unknown key > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 05:27:50PM +0800, Joseph Lo wrote: > > Hooking tegra_tear_down_cpu for Tegra114 for supporting cluster power > > down when CPU cluster suspneded in LP2. > > > > Signed-off-by: Joseph Lo <josephl@nvidia.com> > > --- > > arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c > > index 94e69be..a0668a2 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c > > @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ static void tegra_tear_down_cpu_init(void) > > tegra_tear_down_cpu = tegra20_tear_down_cpu; > > break; > > case TEGRA30: > > + case TEGRA114: > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC)) > > tegra_tear_down_cpu = tegra30_tear_down_cpu; > > This is getting a little weird. Suppose I want to build a Tegra114 only > kernel. With the above code it means the tegra_tear_down_cpu won't be > hooked because ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC isn't selected. > Oops. You are right. Will fix. > Perhaps tegra30_tear_down_cpu() should be built unconditionally so that > it's always available? The tegra30_tear_down_cpu will be built for both Tegra30 or Tegra114. > > There are other alternatives like adding another Kconfig symbol which > doesn't cover all of Tegra30 but only code shared with Tegra114 (and > possible future chips) or building sleep-tegra30.S if either one of the > ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC or ARCH_TEGRA_114_SOC symbols is selected. > Yes, we building "sleep-tegra30.S" when either one of the ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC or ARCH_TEGRA_114_SOC symbols is selected. Thanks, Joseph
On 06/27/2013 04:13 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 05:27:50PM +0800, Joseph Lo wrote: >> Hooking tegra_tear_down_cpu for Tegra114 for supporting cluster >> power down when CPU cluster suspneded in LP2. >> >> Signed-off-by: Joseph Lo <josephl@nvidia.com> --- >> arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c >> index 94e69be..a0668a2 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c +++ >> b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ static void >> tegra_tear_down_cpu_init(void) tegra_tear_down_cpu = >> tegra20_tear_down_cpu; break; case TEGRA30: + case TEGRA114: if >> (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC)) tegra_tear_down_cpu = >> tegra30_tear_down_cpu; > > This is getting a little weird. Suppose I want to build a Tegra114 > only kernel. With the above code it means the tegra_tear_down_cpu > won't be hooked because ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC isn't selected. > > Perhaps tegra30_tear_down_cpu() should be built unconditionally so > that it's always available? I suspect that something similar will > need to be done for future chips too, further complicating > matters. > > There are other alternatives like adding another Kconfig symbol > which doesn't cover all of Tegra30 but only code shared with > Tegra114 (and possible future chips) or building sleep-tegra30.S if > either one of the ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC or ARCH_TEGRA_114_SOC symbols > is selected. To be honest, I wonder if we should just get rid of ARCH_TEGRA_*_SOC, and build everything if ARCH_TEGRA is defined. tegra_defconfig enables all ARCH_TEGRA_*_SOC anyway, and I'm afraid I don't test other configurations very often, and I assume that distros will enable everything...
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:48:49AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 06/27/2013 04:13 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 05:27:50PM +0800, Joseph Lo wrote: > >> Hooking tegra_tear_down_cpu for Tegra114 for supporting cluster > >> power down when CPU cluster suspneded in LP2. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Joseph Lo <josephl@nvidia.com> --- > >> arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c > >> index 94e69be..a0668a2 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c +++ > >> b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ static void > >> tegra_tear_down_cpu_init(void) tegra_tear_down_cpu = > >> tegra20_tear_down_cpu; break; case TEGRA30: + case TEGRA114: if > >> (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC)) tegra_tear_down_cpu = > >> tegra30_tear_down_cpu; > > > > This is getting a little weird. Suppose I want to build a Tegra114 > > only kernel. With the above code it means the tegra_tear_down_cpu > > won't be hooked because ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC isn't selected. > > > > Perhaps tegra30_tear_down_cpu() should be built unconditionally so > > that it's always available? I suspect that something similar will > > need to be done for future chips too, further complicating > > matters. > > > > There are other alternatives like adding another Kconfig symbol > > which doesn't cover all of Tegra30 but only code shared with > > Tegra114 (and possible future chips) or building sleep-tegra30.S if > > either one of the ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC or ARCH_TEGRA_114_SOC symbols > > is selected. > > To be honest, I wonder if we should just get rid of ARCH_TEGRA_*_SOC, > and build everything if ARCH_TEGRA is defined. tegra_defconfig enables > all ARCH_TEGRA_*_SOC anyway, and I'm afraid I don't test other > configurations very often, and I assume that distros will enable > everything... The same thing had occurred to me as well. Obviously there could be some savings in executable code for people that really only need one specific generation. But, without having any concrete numbers, I suspect that all the ARCH_TEGRA code is less than 100 KiB in total so I don't think it matters that much given that there aren't any devices with less than 256 MiB of RAM (that I've heard of at least). Thierry
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c index 94e69be..a0668a2 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ static void tegra_tear_down_cpu_init(void) tegra_tear_down_cpu = tegra20_tear_down_cpu; break; case TEGRA30: + case TEGRA114: if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_3x_SOC)) tegra_tear_down_cpu = tegra30_tear_down_cpu; break;
Hooking tegra_tear_down_cpu for Tegra114 for supporting cluster power down when CPU cluster suspneded in LP2. Signed-off-by: Joseph Lo <josephl@nvidia.com> --- arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)