Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Sun 2008-02-03 23:27:20, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:24:07PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Sun 2008-02-03 19:49:31, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > This version works on 32-bit, and

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Sun 2008-02-03 23:27:20, Sam Ravnborg wrote: On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:24:07PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: On Sun 2008-02-03 19:49:31, Sam Ravnborg wrote: On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

Hi! Here's updated diff. Video & Makefiles by hpa, rest by me ;-). Pavel diff --git a/arch/x86/Makefile b/arch/x86/Makefile index 8978e98..949b8eb 100644 --- a/arch/x86/Makefile +++ b/arch/x86/Makefile @@ -192,8 +192,8 @@

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Mon 2008-02-04 00:59:38, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, 4 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > BTW, I don't like the way in which the 'struct wakeup_header' fields are > > > reproduced in rm/wakeup.S very much, because it makes the code fragile. > > > It might be

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Monday, 4 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > - Could the real mode directory be called just "real-mode" or something like > > this ("rm" is not very meaningful :-))? > > > > Apart from the above and the _WAKEUP hacks mentioned elsewhere, it looks > > okay > > (from a very

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Monday, 4 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > BTW, I don't like the way in which the 'struct wakeup_header' fields are > > reproduced in rm/wakeup.S very much, because it makes the code fragile. > > It might be better to define the offsets in asm-offsets*.c and refer to them > >

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

Hi! > BTW, I don't like the way in which the 'struct wakeup_header' fields are > reproduced in rm/wakeup.S very much, because it makes the code fragile. > It might be better to define the offsets in asm-offsets*.c and refer to them > relative to wakeup_header (if possible). If you can do that..

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

> it looks okay > (from a very high orbit). It should look better from closer look. Reusing trampoline_64.S instead of cut gets us rid of some really nasty assembly ;-). Pavel -- (english)

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Monday, 4 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Mon 2008-02-04 00:20:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > > > This version works on 32-bit, and builds

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

Hi! > - Could the real mode directory be called just "real-mode" or something like > this ("rm" is not very meaningful :-))? > > Apart from the above and the _WAKEUP hacks mentioned elsewhere, it looks okay > (from a very high orbit). Wakeup hacks? You mean those #ifdef WAKEUP in video code?

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

Hi! > Below is the arch/x86/kernel/acpi/sleep.c part without the warnings > (untested). > > It still contains some hardcoded magic numbers and extern declarations, so > I guess the #include list is not complete or another header is necessary. > > BTW: > 1) why exactly is acpi_wakeup_address

Re: [linux-pm] Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Monday, 4 of February 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty > > > > > sure it does not work.

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Mon 2008-02-04 00:20:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty > > > > > sure it does not work.

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty > > > > sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) > > > > > > > > > >

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty > > > sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) > > > > > > > Do you have an updated version or is this the latest one? > > I'm glad

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:24:07PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Sun 2008-02-03 19:49:31, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > > > This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty > > > > > sure it does not

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Sun 2008-02-03 19:49:31, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > > > This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty > > > > sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) > > > > > > > > >

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

Sam Ravnborg wrote: On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) Do you have an updated version or is this the latest one? I'm glad

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty > > > sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) > > > > > > > Do you have an updated version or is this the latest one? > >

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty > > > sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) > > > > > > > Do you have an updated version or is this the latest one? > > I'm glad

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

Hi! > > This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty > > sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) > > > > Do you have an updated version or is this the latest one? I'm glad you ask ;-). Here's reasonably-recent version (I have slightly cleaner

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Wednesday, 30 of January 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! Hi, > This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty > sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) > Do you have an updated version or is this the latest one? Rafael -- To unsubscribe

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Wednesday, 30 of January 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! Hi, This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) Do you have an updated version or is this the latest one? Rafael -- To unsubscribe from

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

Hi! This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) Do you have an updated version or is this the latest one? I'm glad you ask ;-). Here's reasonably-recent version (I have slightly cleaner one,

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) Do you have an updated version or is this the latest one? I'm glad you ask ;-).

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) Do you have an updated version or is this the latest one? I'm glad you ask

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

Sam Ravnborg wrote: On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) Do you have an updated version or is this the latest one? I'm glad

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Sun 2008-02-03 19:49:31, Sam Ravnborg wrote: On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) Do you have an

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 11:24:07PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: On Sun 2008-02-03 19:49:31, Sam Ravnborg wrote: On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 07:16:48PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty sure it does not work. 32-bit code

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) Do you have an updated version or is this the latest one? I'm glad you ask ;-).

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) Do you have an updated

Re: [linux-pm] Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Monday, 4 of February 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Mon 2008-02-04 00:20:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

Hi! Below is the arch/x86/kernel/acpi/sleep.c part without the warnings (untested). It still contains some hardcoded magic numbers and extern declarations, so I guess the #include list is not complete or another header is necessary. BTW: 1) why exactly is acpi_wakeup_address not (void

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Monday, 4 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: On Mon 2008-02-04 00:20:14, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Sunday, 3 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

Hi! - Could the real mode directory be called just real-mode or something like this (rm is not very meaningful :-))? Apart from the above and the _WAKEUP hacks mentioned elsewhere, it looks okay (from a very high orbit). Wakeup hacks? You mean those #ifdef WAKEUP in video code?

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

it looks okay (from a very high orbit). It should look better from closer look. Reusing trampoline_64.S instead of cutcopypaste gets us rid of some really nasty assembly ;-). Pavel -- (english)

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

Hi! BTW, I don't like the way in which the 'struct wakeup_header' fields are reproduced in rm/wakeup.S very much, because it makes the code fragile. It might be better to define the offsets in asm-offsets*.c and refer to them relative to wakeup_header (if possible). If you can do that.. yes,

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Monday, 4 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! - Could the real mode directory be called just real-mode or something like this (rm is not very meaningful :-))? Apart from the above and the _WAKEUP hacks mentioned elsewhere, it looks okay (from a very high orbit).

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Monday, 4 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! BTW, I don't like the way in which the 'struct wakeup_header' fields are reproduced in rm/wakeup.S very much, because it makes the code fragile. It might be better to define the offsets in asm-offsets*.c and refer to them relative

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

Hi! Here's updated diff. Video Makefiles by hpa, rest by me ;-). Pavel diff --git a/arch/x86/Makefile b/arch/x86/Makefile index 8978e98..949b8eb 100644 --- a/arch/x86/Makefile +++ b/arch/x86/Makefile @@ -192,8 +192,8 @@

Re: wakeup code translated to .c

On Mon 2008-02-04 00:59:38, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Monday, 4 of February 2008, Pavel Machek wrote: Hi! BTW, I don't like the way in which the 'struct wakeup_header' fields are reproduced in rm/wakeup.S very much, because it makes the code fragile. It might be better to define

wakeup code translated to .c

Hi! This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) Pavel diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/Makefile b/arch/x86/boot/Makefile index

wakeup code translated to .c

Hi! This version works on 32-bit, and builds on 64-bit (but I'm pretty sure it does not work. 32-bit code probably needs to go into rm/) Pavel diff --git a/arch/x86/boot/Makefile b/arch/x86/boot/Makefile index