On 11/17/2013 02:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, November 09, 2013 06:36:12 PM al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Al Stone <ahs3@xxxxxxxxxx>
Remove the saving and restoring of bus master reload registers in
suspend/resume when in reduces HW mode; according to the spec, no
such registers should exist
Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 8 +++++++-
include/acpi/acpixf.h | 6 ++++++
2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
index 35c8f2b..28079a6 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c
@@ -210,6 +210,7 @@ static void lapic_timer_state_broadcast(struct acpi_processor *pr,
#endif
#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
+#if (!ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE)
Why don't you use #ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE here?
And I believe we don't need acpi_processor_syscore_ops in that case at all?
So why don't you put the whole section under
#if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE)) ?
My original thinking was that ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE is the flag
being used in the ACPICA code. On re-thinking it (and I'll use
your suggestion, if you don't mind), is it fair to say that there
is essentially a policy of keeping the Linux acpi driver and the
ACPICA code as separate as possible? If so -- and I would think
it makes sense -- then the ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE flag should not
be used here, as suggested.
Thanks.
static u32 saved_bm_rld;
static int acpi_processor_suspend(void)
@@ -228,6 +229,11 @@ static void acpi_processor_resume(void)
acpi_write_bit_register(ACPI_BITREG_BUS_MASTER_RLD, saved_bm_rld);
}
+#else
+/* Bus master reload is not supported in reduced HW mode. */
+static int acpi_processor_suspend(void) { return 0; }
+static void acpi_processor_resume(void) { return; }
+#endif /* (!ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE) */
static struct syscore_ops acpi_processor_syscore_ops = {
.suspend = acpi_processor_suspend,
I'm not sure why you think that the changes below belong to this patch?
It doesn't. My bad. I'll remove this.
@@ -605,7 +611,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_power_verify(struct acpi_processor *pr)
case ACPI_STATE_C2:
if (!cx->address)
break;
- cx->valid = 1;
+ cx->valid = 1;
break;
case ACPI_STATE_C3:
diff --git a/include/acpi/acpixf.h b/include/acpi/acpixf.h
index d8f9457..27ef69b 100644
--- a/include/acpi/acpixf.h
+++ b/include/acpi/acpixf.h
@@ -99,6 +99,9 @@ extern u8 acpi_gbl_disable_ssdt_table_load;
#define ACPI_HW_DEPENDENT_RETURN_VOID(prototype) \
prototype;
+#define ACPI_HW_DEPENDENT_RETURN_INT(prototype) \
+ prototype;
+
#else
#define ACPI_HW_DEPENDENT_RETURN_STATUS(prototype) \
static ACPI_INLINE prototype {return(AE_NOT_CONFIGURED);}
@@ -109,6 +112,9 @@ extern u8 acpi_gbl_disable_ssdt_table_load;
#define ACPI_HW_DEPENDENT_RETURN_VOID(prototype) \
static ACPI_INLINE prototype {return;}
+#define ACPI_HW_DEPENDENT_RETURN_INT(prototype) \
+ static ACPI_INLINE prototype {return 0;}
+
#endif /* !ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE */
/*
--
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Linaro Enterprise Group
al.stone@xxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
