>> #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_PM >> @@ -613,7 +636,7 @@ static void gic_cpu_restore(unsigned int gic_nr) >> dist_base + GIC_DIST_PRI + i * 4); >> >> writel_relaxed(GIC_INT_PRI_THRESHOLD, cpu_base + GIC_CPU_PRIMASK); >> - writel_relaxed(GIC_CPU_ENABLE, cpu_base + GIC_CPU_CTRL); >> + gic_cpu_if_up(); > > Have you tested the save/restore path? It seems that we dont save > GICC_CTLR, so it may not do what you think it will...
We are debating which is the better method. Currently we are only disabling the GIC distributor so it is not a problem. Later on, with more aggressive PM we could have the helper core to setup the GIC CTLR prior to releasing out of the PM state. However, it seems it would be more cleaner if we save off the GIC_CTLR bits in the gic_cpu_save. This would add additional items in to the gic_chip_data. Would you be open to that? > >> } >> >> static int gic_notifier(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long cmd, >> void *v) > > -- > Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/