On Tue, May 20 2014 at 2:26:33 am BST, Feng Kan <f...@apm.com> wrote: >>> #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?
I'm open to anything that looks reasonable and doesn't introduce regressions. Saving/restoring the CPU interface state should be fine. M. -- 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/