On 10/09/2013 03:20 AM, Joseph Lo wrote: > The LP1 suspend procedure is the same with Tegra30 and Tegra114. Just > need to update the difference of the register address, then we can > continue to share the code. > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/sleep-tegra30.S b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/sleep-tegra30.S > tegra114_sdram_pad_size: > - .word tegra30_sdram_pad_size - tegra114_sdram_pad_address > + .word tegra124_sdram_pad_address - tegra114_sdram_pad_address Why not put label tegra30_sdram_pad_address_end after the Tegra30 table and tegra114_sdram_pad_address_end after the Tegra114 table, etc. That way, you won't have to modify previous chips when you add a new one. > .type tegra30_sdram_pad_save, %object > tegra30_sdram_pad_save: Shouldn't that name be tegra_xxx not tegra30_xxx, since I think the same register save area is used for all SoCs? > - .rept (tegra30_sdram_pad_size - tegra114_sdram_pad_address) / 4 > + .rept (tegra124_sdram_pad_address - tegra114_sdram_pad_address) / 4 I assume this is intended to reserve enough space to store all the saved registers for the largest table of tegra30_sdram_pad_address, tegra114_sdram_pad_address, tegra124_sdram_pad_address. I count more entries in the existing Tegra114 table than the new Tegra124 table, so I'm not sure this part of the change is correct. Is there no way to do a max(tegra30 size, tegra114 size, tegra124 size) so you don't have to pick manually which size to reserve here? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
