On 17 March 2014 13:44, Ezequiel Garcia ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Mar 17, Sebastian Capella wrote:
On 16 March 2014 00:09, Ezequiel Garcia ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com wrote:
On Mar 05, Sebastian Capella wrote: [..]
diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mm/Kconfig index 1f8fed9..83707702 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mm/Kconfig +++ b/arch/arm/mm/Kconfig @@ -611,6 +611,11 @@ config CPU_USE_DOMAINS config IO_36 bool
+config ARCH_HIBERNATION_POSSIBLE
...
Is there any reason why CPU_FEROCEON is not listed here? FWIW, I've just built (but not really tested) a Kirkwood kernel with CONFIG_HIBERNATION=y.
...
Sure, no problem. If you consider that build-test is enough, feel free to put CPU_FEROCEON on that list. We added suspend/resume to feroceon not long ago.
And is there any reason to put this config in arch/arm/mm/Kconfig, instead of in arch/arm/Kconfig, below ARCH_SUSPEND_POSSIBLE?
...
I guess my question wasn't clear. I mean to ask: Are there any other requirements on an ARM platform to support hibernation, other than suspend/resume support?
If this is the *only* requirement, it seems to me we could make our ARCH_SUSPEND_POSSIBLE also select ARCH_HIBERNATION_POSSIBLE.
Thanks, I've added it like this in arch/arm/Kconfig. I'm sure you know, but this way also takes care of the CPU_FEROCEON in the default list since SUSPEND_POSSIBLE already contains it.
config ARCH_HIBERNATION_POSSIBLE bool depends on MMU default y if ARCH_SUSPEND_POSSIBLE
Does this look ok?
Thanks!
Sebastian