On 16/02/16 20:13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, December 02, 2015 02:10:43 PM Sudeep Holla wrote:
acpi_processor_sleep is neither related nor used by CPUIdle framework.
It's used in system suspend/resume path as a syscore operation. It makes
more sense to move it to acpi/sleep.c where all the S-state transition
(a.k.a. Linux system suspend/hiberate) related code are present.
Also make it depend on CONFIG_ACPI_SYSTEM_POWER_STATES_SUPPORT so that
it's not compiled on architecture like ARM64 where S-states are not
yet defined in ACPI.
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
To me this goes in the right direction, but I'd take it a bit further.
---
drivers/acpi/processor_driver.c | 2 --
drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 37 -------------------------------------
drivers/acpi/sleep.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
include/acpi/processor.h | 8 --------
4 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
[...]
@@ -677,6 +678,39 @@ static void acpi_sleep_suspend_setup(void)
static inline void acpi_sleep_suspend_setup(void) {}
#endif /* !CONFIG_SUSPEND */
+#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
+static u32 saved_bm_rld;
+
+static int acpi_processor_suspend(void)
Why do we need mention processor in the function name here (and below)?
I'd call it something like acpi_save/restore_bm_rld() (maybe with a short comment
explaining what the BM RLD is).
Sure, I had thought so initially and wanted to do that in a separate
patch for easy of review but totally forgot later. Thanks for pointing
it out. Updated patch on it's way.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
--
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
