[PATCH v4] ARM: cache-l2x0: add resume entry for l2 in secure mode
Russell King - ARM Linux
linux at arm.linux.org.uk
Mon Oct 3 09:41:46 EDT 2011
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 11:57:03AM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 04:06:46PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 02:42:53AM -0700, Barry Song wrote:
> > > From: Barry Song <Baohua.Song at csr.com>
> > >
> > > we save the l2x0 registers at the first initialization, and platform codes
> > > can get them to restore l2x0 status after wakeup.
> > >
> > > Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <Baohua.Song at csr.com>
> > > Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar at ti.com>
> > > Tested-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo at linaro.org>
> >
> > This looks fine, thanks Barry.
> >
> > The one remaining issue is whether we use this or use Lorenzo's patches.
> > I feel that Barry's version is a lot simpler and easier to use, so this
> > is my preference. Anyone else got another opinion between the two?
> >
>
> Basically the two patches do the same thing except that Barry's generic
> resume code cannot be called before the MMU is turned on. On the other hand
> Barry's patch is certainly simpler to maintain and I think it should be
> merged, preference shared; I would not say it is easier to use though, usage
> is identical.
>
> It is agreed, better to have it in C than in asm for maintenance reasons,
> asm can turn out overkill.
> If there is a compelling case for generic L2 asm we can always add it at a
> later stage (at least Origen, latest iMX and I think Tegra will need early L2
> resume from idle).
Ok, so it sounds like we're settled on Barry's code... so can it head to
the patch system please?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list