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-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|