On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 05:11:49PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:16:31PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:12:20AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:01:32AM +0100, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 07:05:10PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > > Out of the list you mention above, the only thing which isn't saved are the
> > > > > FIQ registers, and that's a problem for S2RAM too, and should be done by
> > > > > arch/arm/kernel/fiq.c hooking into the suspend paths.
> > > >
> > > > The alternative view is that the driver using FIQ owns the state in the FIQ
> > > > mode registers and is therefore responsible for saving and restoring it
> > > > across suspend/resume. If so, then any additional globally implemented
> > > > state save/restore of the FIQ mode state is unnecessary.
> > >
> > > This seems to be most sensible - if the FIQ is being used as a software-DMA,
> > > then the hardware side of that needs to be cleanly shutdown (eg, waiting for
> > > the DMA to complete before proceeding) to ensure no loss of data. That
> > > can't happen from within the FIQ code.
> >
> > OK. Frank suggested putting comments to this effect in <asm/fiq.h>.
> >
> > I think something along these lines might be appropriate:
> >
> > /*
> > * The FIQ mode registers are not magically preserved across suspend/resume.
> > *
> > * Drivers which require these registers to be preserved across power
> > * management operations must implement appropriate suspend/resume handlers
> > * to save and restore them.
> > */
> >
> > Is the header file a good place for this, or is there some other better
> > place to put it?
>
> I tend to suggest that the header file is the right place, because that's
> where the interface is defined. Other people argue that its more likely
> to be seen in the implementation (fiq.c). So I'm tempted to say both,
> but lets go with fiq.h for the time being.
OK -- the {get,set}_fiq_regs patch is currently in your patch system.
If you have no objection, I'll submit a patch adding the above text to apply
on top of the other patch (or, if possible, orthogonally).
---Dave
>
> > That argument may apply to a ton of state in the Secure World, not just
> > the FIQ registers
>
> It very much does, and I know OMAP has some kind of SMC call to handle
> this.
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
