Message-ID: <530FF245.7070300@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 18:19:49 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@ti.com>
CC: Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@linaro.org>,
        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> <530FEAA9.7040601@ti.com>
In-Reply-To: <530FEAA9.7040601@ti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On 02/27/14 17:47, Russ Dill wrote:
> 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 don't think it's been dropped yet but I wonder if anyone has tried
recent kernels with such a compiler?

Would the usage of &__pv_table_begin in arch/arm/mm/mmu.c also need the
same treatment? Or the tagtable loop in atags_parse.c? Do the other
architectures also need to be fixed? That link Sebastian points to says
that ppc originally needed it but pfn_is_nosave() on ppc doesn't use
RELOC_HIDE anywhere in their __pa() macro from what I can tell.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
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/