Re: [PATCH v3]PM/Sleep: Timer quiesce in freeze state

["Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>]

On Monday, January 26, 2015 03:15:43 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > On Monday, January 26, 2015 10:40:24 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> > > > On 2015/1/22 18:15, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > Can we please stop adding more crap to that notifier thing? I rather
> > > > > see that go away than being expanded.
> > > > 
> > > > Are you referring to FREEZE_PREPARE or remove all of FREEZE staff at all?
> > > > 
> > > > What's the disadvantage of adding more notifier?
> > > 
> > > clockevents_notify() is not a notifier. Its a multiplex call and I
> > > want to get rid of it and replace it with explicit functions.
> > 
> > OK, so perhaps we need to move _SUSPEND/_RESUME out of there to start with?
> > 
> > As far as I can say, clockevents_notify(CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_SUSPEND, NULL) and
> > clockevents_notify(CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_RESUME, NULL) are each only called from
> > one place and moreover, since they are in syscore_ops, we don't need any
> > locking around them.
> > 
> > So what about the patch below?
> 
> I'm cleaning up the whole replacement of notify. The stuff below is
> part of it.
> 
> >  
> > -	clockevents_notify(CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_SUSPEND, NULL);
> > +	tick_suspend();
> > +	tick_suspend_broadcast();
> 
> That's exactly the stuff I don't want to see. Blind code
> move.

At least it's clear what the patch does. :-)

> tick_suspend_broadcast() wants to be called from tick_suspend().

OK

> Still compiling and testing a gazillion of combinations.

OK, so it looks like we need to wait with the suspend to idle changes until
this lands.

Rafael