Message-ID: <530FEAA9.7040601@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 17:47:21 -0800
From: Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@ti.com>
Organization: Texas Instruments
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
        Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@linaro.org>
CC: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Jonathan Austin <jonathan.austin@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?VXdlIEtsZWluZS1Lw7ZuaWc=?= 
	<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 2/2] ARM hibernation / suspend-to-disk
References: <1393545478-14908-1-git-send-email-sebastian.capella@linaro.org> <1393545478-14908-3-git-send-email-sebastian.capella@linaro.org> <530FD3CF.2040900@codeaurora.org>
In-Reply-To: <530FD3CF.2040900@codeaurora.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On 02/27/2014 04:09 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 02/27/14 15:57, Sebastian Capella wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h
>> b/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h index 8756e4b..1079ea8 100644 ---
>> a/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h +++
>> b/arch/arm/include/asm/memory.h @@ -291,6 +291,7 @@ static inline
>> void *phys_to_virt(phys_addr_t x) */ #define __pa(x)
>> __virt_to_phys((unsigned long)(x)) #define __va(x)			((void
>> *)__phys_to_virt((phys_addr_t)(x))) +#define __pa_symbol(x)
>> __pa(RELOC_HIDE((unsigned long)(x), 0))
> 
> Just curious, is there a reason for the RELOC_HIDE() here? Or 
> __pa_symbol() for that matter? It looks like only x86 uses this on
> the __nosave_{begin,end} symbol. Maybe it's copy-pasta?

>From my understanding this needs to stick around so long as gcc 3.x is
supported (did it get dropped yet?) on ARM Linux since it doesn't
support -fno-strict-overflow.

> I also wonder if anyone has thought about making a __weak 
> pfn_is_nosave() function so that architectures don't need to
> implement the same thing every time. Consolidating those shouldn't
> be part of this patch though.
> 

Yes, I think just a couple of the architectures do anything besides
checking if the address falls within the nosave section.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/