On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:27:16AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2011, Frank Hofmann wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 May 2011, Dave Martin wrote:
> >
> > [ ... ]
> > >> +/*
> > >> + * Save the current CPU state before suspend / poweroff.
> > >> + */
> > >> +ENTRY(swsusp_arch_suspend)
> > >> + ldr r0, =__swsusp_arch_ctx
> > >> + mrs r1, cpsr
> > >> + str r1, [r0], #4 /* CPSR */
> > >> +ARM( msr cpsr_c, #SYSTEM_MODE )
> > >> +THUMB( mov r2, #SYSTEM_MODE )
> > >> +THUMB( msr cpsr_c, r2 )
> > >
> > > For Thumb-2 kernels, you can use the cps instruction to change the CPU
> > > mode:
> > > cps #SYSTEM_MODE
> > >
> > > For ARM though, this instruction is only supported for ARMv6 and above,
> > > so it's best to keep the msr form for compatibility for that case.
> >
> > Ah, ok, no problem will make that change, looks good.
> >
> > Do all ARMs have cpsr / spsr as used here ? Or is that code restricted to
> > ARMv5+ ? I don't have the CPU evolution history there, only got involved
> > with ARM when armv6 already was out.
> >
> > I've simply done there what the "setmode" macro from <asm/assembler.h>
> > is doing, have chosen not to include that file because it overrides "push"
> > on a global scale for no good reason and that sort of thing makes me
> > cringe.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >> + stm r0!, {r4-r12,lr} /* nonvolatile regs */
> > >
> > > Since r12 is allowed to be corrupted across a function call, we
> > > probably don't need to save it.
> >
> > ah ok thx for clarification. Earlier iterations of the patch just saved
> > r0-r14 there, "just to have it all", doing it right is best as always.
> >
> > >
> > [ ... ]
> > >> + bl __save_processor_state
> > >
> > > <aside>
> > >
> > > Structurally, we seem to have:
> > >
> > > swsusp_arch_suspend {
> > > /* save some processor state */
> > > __save_processor_state();
> > >
> > > swsusp_save();
> > > }
> > >
> > > Is __save_processor_state() intended to encapsulate all the CPU-model-
> > > specific state saving? Excuse my ignorance of previous conversations...
> > >
> > > </aside>
> >
> > You're right.
> >
> > I've attached the codechanges which implement __save/__restore... for
> > TI OMAP3 and Samsung S5P64xx, to illustrate, again (that's the stuff
> > referred to in the earlier mail I mentioned in first post; beware of code
> > churn in there, those diffs don't readily apply to 'just any' kernel).
> >
> > These hooks are essentially the same as the machine-specific cpu_suspend()
> > except that we substitute "r0" (the save context after the generic part)
> > as target for where-to-save-the-state, and we make the funcs return
> > instead of switching to OFF mode.
> >
> > That's what I meant with "backdoorish". A better way would be to change
> > the cpu_suspend interface so that it returns instead of directly switching
> > to off mode / powering down.
> >
> > Russell has lately been making changes in this area; the current kernels
> > are a bit different here since the caller already supplies the
> > state-save-buffer, while the older ones used to choose in some
> > mach-specific way where to store that state.
> >
> > (one of the reasons why these mach-dependent enablers aren't part of this
> > patch suggestion ...)
> >
> >
> > >
> > >> + pop {lr}
> > >> + b swsusp_save
> > >> +ENDPROC(swsusp_arch_suspend)
> > >
> > > I'm not too familiar with the suspend/resume stuff, so I may be asking
> > > a dumb question here, but:
> > >
> > > Where do we save/restore r8_FIQ..r13_FIQ, r13_IRQ, r13_UND and r13_ABT?
> > > (I'm assuming there's no reason to save/restore r14 or SPSR for any
> > > exception mode, since we presumably aren't going to suspend/resume
> > > from inside an exception handler (?))
> > >
> > > The exception stack pointers might conceivably be reinitialised to
> > > sane values on resume, without necessarily needing to save/restore
> > > them, providing my assumption in the previous paragraph is correct.
> > >
> > > r8_FIQ..r12_FIQ can store arbitrary state used by the FIQ handler,
> > > if FIQ is in use. Can we expect any driver using FIQ to save/restore
> > > this state itself, rather than doing it globally? This may be
> > > reasonable.
> >
> > We don't need to save/restore those, because at the time the snapshot is
> > taken interrupts are off and we cannot be in any trap handler either. On
> > resume, the kernel that has been loaded has initialized them properly
> > already.
>
> I'm not sure if this is a safe assumption in general. We may decide to
> switch to loading hibernate images from boot loaders, for example, and
> it may not hold any more. Generally, please don't assume _anything_ has
> been properly initialized during resume, before the image is loaded.
> This has already beaten us a couple of times.
Surely when resuming via the bootloader, the bootloader must still
branch to some resume entry point in the kernel?
That resume code would be responsible for doing any OS-specific
initialisation and waking up the kernel; plus, the kernel should
not re-enable interrupts until the kernel state has been restored
anyway. It wouldn't be the responsibility of the bootloader to
set up the relevant state.
Cheers
---Dave
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
