On 11/17/2013 02:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, November 09, 2013 06:36:12 PM al.stone@linaro.org wrote:
From: Al Stone ahs3@redhat.com
Remove the saving and restoring of bus master reload registers in suspend/resume when in reduces HW mode; according to the spec, no such registers should exist
Signed-off-by: Al Stone al.stone@linaro.org
drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 8 +++++++- include/acpi/acpixf.h | 6 ++++++ 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c index 35c8f2b..28079a6 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c @@ -210,6 +210,7 @@ static void lapic_timer_state_broadcast(struct acpi_processor *pr, #endif
#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP +#if (!ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE)
Why don't you use #ifndef CONFIG_ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE here?
And I believe we don't need acpi_processor_syscore_ops in that case at all?
So why don't you put the whole section under
#if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE)) ?
My original thinking was that ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE is the flag being used in the ACPICA code. On re-thinking it (and I'll use your suggestion, if you don't mind), is it fair to say that there is essentially a policy of keeping the Linux acpi driver and the ACPICA code as separate as possible? If so -- and I would think it makes sense -- then the ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE flag should not be used here, as suggested.
Thanks.
static u32 saved_bm_rld;
static int acpi_processor_suspend(void) @@ -228,6 +229,11 @@ static void acpi_processor_resume(void)
acpi_write_bit_register(ACPI_BITREG_BUS_MASTER_RLD, saved_bm_rld); } +#else +/* Bus master reload is not supported in reduced HW mode. */ +static int acpi_processor_suspend(void) { return 0; } +static void acpi_processor_resume(void) { return; } +#endif /* (!ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE) */
static struct syscore_ops acpi_processor_syscore_ops = { .suspend = acpi_processor_suspend,
I'm not sure why you think that the changes below belong to this patch?
It doesn't. My bad. I'll remove this.
@@ -605,7 +611,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_power_verify(struct acpi_processor *pr) case ACPI_STATE_C2: if (!cx->address) break;
cx->valid = 1;
cx->valid = 1; break;case ACPI_STATE_C3:
diff --git a/include/acpi/acpixf.h b/include/acpi/acpixf.h index d8f9457..27ef69b 100644 --- a/include/acpi/acpixf.h +++ b/include/acpi/acpixf.h @@ -99,6 +99,9 @@ extern u8 acpi_gbl_disable_ssdt_table_load; #define ACPI_HW_DEPENDENT_RETURN_VOID(prototype) \ prototype;
+#define ACPI_HW_DEPENDENT_RETURN_INT(prototype) \
- prototype;
- #else #define ACPI_HW_DEPENDENT_RETURN_STATUS(prototype) \ static ACPI_INLINE prototype {return(AE_NOT_CONFIGURED);}
@@ -109,6 +112,9 @@ extern u8 acpi_gbl_disable_ssdt_table_load; #define ACPI_HW_DEPENDENT_RETURN_VOID(prototype) \ static ACPI_INLINE prototype {return;}
+#define ACPI_HW_DEPENDENT_RETURN_INT(prototype) \
static ACPI_INLINE prototype {return 0;}
#endif /* !ACPI_REDUCED_HARDWARE */
/*