[PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Daniel Lezcano]

Changelog:

V5:
	* Removed patch : "Move clock setup to pm.c"
	* Added patch   : "Move arm core power down clock to exynos5250 common code"
V4:
	* Took into account Tomasz's comments
		* Fixed missing call in for central suspend
		* Passed parameter to the wakeup mask function
		* Moved wakeup mask, boot vector and aftr state into a single
		function
		* Used this function as callback for platform data
		* Moved S5P_CHECK_AFTR/S5P_CHECK_SLEEP into pm.c
		* Set boot vector only one time
	* Splitted some patches to make them more readable
V3:
	* Added patch   : "ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Disable cpuidle for 5440"
	* Removed patch : "ARM: exynos: config: Enable cpuidle"
	* Removed default ARM_EXYNOS4210_CPUIDLE=y
	* Added comment about bug fix side effect 'for_each_possible_cpu'
V2: 
	* Added comment in changelog for calls order (5/17)
	* Call the powerdown only for cpu0 in the pm notifier
	* Set the pm notifier for all boards

V1: initial post

This patchset relies on the cpm_pm notifier to initiate the powerdown sequence
operations from pm.c instead cpuidle.c. Thus the cpuidle driver is no longer
dependent from arch specific code as everything is called from the pm.c file.

The patchset applies on top of linux-samsung/for-next.

Tested on exynos4: 4210
Tested on exynos5: 5250 (without AFTR)

Amit Daniel Kachhap (1):
  ARM: EXYNOS: Move arm core power down clock to exynos5250 common
    clock

Daniel Lezcano (19):
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Prevent forward declaration
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Use cpuidle_register
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Change function name prefix
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate register access inside a function
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move some code inside the idle_finisher
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Fix S5P_WAKEUP_STAT call
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Use the cpu_pm notifier
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move scu_enable in the cpu_pm notifier
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Remove ifdef for scu_enable
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass wakeup mask parameter to function
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate boot vector code into a function
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Disable cpuidle for 5440
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate the AFTR code into a function
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the AFTR state function into pm.c
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the power sequence call in the cpu_pm
    notifier
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move S5P_CHECK_SLEEP into pm.c
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Cleanup all unneeded headers from cpuidle.c
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle directory

 arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile        |    1 -
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h        |    1 +
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c       |  255 ----------------------------------
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c        |    8 +-
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c            |  152 ++++++++++++++++----
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h      |    2 -
 drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c |   42 ++++++
 drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm          |    6 +
 drivers/cpuidle/Makefile             |    1 +
 drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c     |   98 +++++++++++++
 10 files changed, 277 insertions(+), 289 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c

-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Daniel Lezcano]

Changelog:

V5:
	* Removed patch : "Move clock setup to pm.c"
	* Added patch   : "Move arm core power down clock to exynos5250 common code"
V4:
	* Took into account Tomasz's comments
		* Fixed missing call in for central suspend
		* Passed parameter to the wakeup mask function
		* Moved wakeup mask, boot vector and aftr state into a single
		function
		* Used this function as callback for platform data
		* Moved S5P_CHECK_AFTR/S5P_CHECK_SLEEP into pm.c
		* Set boot vector only one time
	* Splitted some patches to make them more readable
V3:
	* Added patch   : "ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Disable cpuidle for 5440"
	* Removed patch : "ARM: exynos: config: Enable cpuidle"
	* Removed default ARM_EXYNOS4210_CPUIDLE=y
	* Added comment about bug fix side effect 'for_each_possible_cpu'
V2: 
	* Added comment in changelog for calls order (5/17)
	* Call the powerdown only for cpu0 in the pm notifier
	* Set the pm notifier for all boards

V1: initial post

This patchset relies on the cpm_pm notifier to initiate the powerdown sequence
operations from pm.c instead cpuidle.c. Thus the cpuidle driver is no longer
dependent from arch specific code as everything is called from the pm.c file.

The patchset applies on top of linux-samsung/for-next.

Tested on exynos4: 4210
Tested on exynos5: 5250 (without AFTR)

Amit Daniel Kachhap (1):
  ARM: EXYNOS: Move arm core power down clock to exynos5250 common
    clock

Daniel Lezcano (19):
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Prevent forward declaration
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Use cpuidle_register
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Change function name prefix
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate register access inside a function
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move some code inside the idle_finisher
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Fix S5P_WAKEUP_STAT call
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Use the cpu_pm notifier
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move scu_enable in the cpu_pm notifier
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Remove ifdef for scu_enable
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass wakeup mask parameter to function
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate boot vector code into a function
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Disable cpuidle for 5440
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate the AFTR code into a function
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the AFTR state function into pm.c
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the power sequence call in the cpu_pm
    notifier
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move S5P_CHECK_SLEEP into pm.c
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Cleanup all unneeded headers from cpuidle.c
  ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle directory

 arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile        |    1 -
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h        |    1 +
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c       |  255 ----------------------------------
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c        |    8 +-
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c            |  152 ++++++++++++++++----
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h      |    2 -
 drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c |   42 ++++++
 drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm          |    6 +
 drivers/cpuidle/Makefile             |    1 +
 drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c     |   98 +++++++++++++
 10 files changed, 277 insertions(+), 289 deletions(-)
 delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
 create mode 100644 drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c

-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 01/20] ARM: EXYNOS: Move arm core power down clock to exynos5250 common clock

[Daniel Lezcano]

From: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@samsung.com>

Now with common clock support added for exynos5250 it is necessary to move
this code to exynos5250 common clock driver as clock registers should be
handled there. This change is tested in exynos5250 based arndale platform.

Cc: Abhilash Kesavan <a.kesavan@samsung.com>
Cc: Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsugn.com>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@samsung.com>
[t.figa: Rebased onto current kernel sources.]
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c       |   54 ----------------------------------
 drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c |   42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index b530231..3e260ba 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -40,25 +40,6 @@
 
 #define S5P_CHECK_AFTR		0xFCBA0D10
 
-#define EXYNOS5_PWR_CTRL1			(S5P_VA_CMU + 0x01020)
-#define EXYNOS5_PWR_CTRL2			(S5P_VA_CMU + 0x01024)
-
-#define PWR_CTRL1_CORE2_DOWN_RATIO		(7 << 28)
-#define PWR_CTRL1_CORE1_DOWN_RATIO		(7 << 16)
-#define PWR_CTRL1_DIV2_DOWN_EN			(1 << 9)
-#define PWR_CTRL1_DIV1_DOWN_EN			(1 << 8)
-#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFE			(1 << 5)
-#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFE			(1 << 4)
-#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFI			(1 << 1)
-#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFI			(1 << 0)
-
-#define PWR_CTRL2_DIV2_UP_EN			(1 << 25)
-#define PWR_CTRL2_DIV1_UP_EN			(1 << 24)
-#define PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY2_VAL		(1 << 16)
-#define PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY1_VAL		(1 << 8)
-#define PWR_CTRL2_CORE2_UP_RATIO		(1 << 4)
-#define PWR_CTRL2_CORE1_UP_RATIO		(1 << 0)
-
 static int exynos4_enter_lowpower(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 				struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
 				int index);
@@ -181,46 +162,11 @@ static int exynos4_enter_lowpower(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 		return exynos4_enter_core0_aftr(dev, drv, new_index);
 }
 
-static void __init exynos5_core_down_clk(void)
-{
-	unsigned int tmp;
-
-	/*
-	 * Enable arm clock down (in idle) and set arm divider
-	 * ratios in WFI/WFE state.
-	 */
-	tmp = PWR_CTRL1_CORE2_DOWN_RATIO | \
-	      PWR_CTRL1_CORE1_DOWN_RATIO | \
-	      PWR_CTRL1_DIV2_DOWN_EN	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL1_DIV1_DOWN_EN	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFE	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFE	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFI	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFI;
-	__raw_writel(tmp, EXYNOS5_PWR_CTRL1);
-
-	/*
-	 * Enable arm clock up (on exiting idle). Set arm divider
-	 * ratios when not in idle along with the standby duration
-	 * ratios.
-	 */
-	tmp = PWR_CTRL2_DIV2_UP_EN	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL2_DIV1_UP_EN	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY2_VAL | \
-	      PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY1_VAL | \
-	      PWR_CTRL2_CORE2_UP_RATIO	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL2_CORE1_UP_RATIO;
-	__raw_writel(tmp, EXYNOS5_PWR_CTRL2);
-}
-
 static int exynos_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	int cpu_id, ret;
 	struct cpuidle_device *device;
 
-	if (soc_is_exynos5250())
-		exynos5_core_down_clk();
-
 	if (soc_is_exynos5440())
 		exynos4_idle_driver.state_count = 1;
 
diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c
index e7ee442..2bb4625 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c
@@ -24,6 +24,8 @@
 #define APLL_CON0		0x100
 #define SRC_CPU			0x200
 #define DIV_CPU0		0x500
+#define PWR_CTRL1		0x1020
+#define PWR_CTRL2		0x1024
 #define MPLL_LOCK		0x4000
 #define MPLL_CON0		0x4100
 #define SRC_CORE1		0x4204
@@ -80,6 +82,23 @@
 #define SRC_CDREX		0x20200
 #define PLL_DIV2_SEL		0x20a24
 
+/*Below definitions are used for PWR_CTRL settings*/
+#define PWR_CTRL1_CORE2_DOWN_RATIO		(7 << 28)
+#define PWR_CTRL1_CORE1_DOWN_RATIO		(7 << 16)
+#define PWR_CTRL1_DIV2_DOWN_EN			(1 << 9)
+#define PWR_CTRL1_DIV1_DOWN_EN			(1 << 8)
+#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFE			(1 << 5)
+#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFE			(1 << 4)
+#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFI			(1 << 1)
+#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFI			(1 << 0)
+
+#define PWR_CTRL2_DIV2_UP_EN			(1 << 25)
+#define PWR_CTRL2_DIV1_UP_EN			(1 << 24)
+#define PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY2_VAL		(1 << 16)
+#define PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY1_VAL		(1 << 8)
+#define PWR_CTRL2_CORE2_UP_RATIO		(1 << 4)
+#define PWR_CTRL2_CORE1_UP_RATIO		(1 << 0)
+
 /* list of PLLs to be registered */
 enum exynos5250_plls {
 	apll, mpll, cpll, epll, vpll, gpll, bpll,
@@ -98,6 +117,8 @@ static struct samsung_clk_reg_dump *exynos5250_save;
 static unsigned long exynos5250_clk_regs[] __initdata = {
 	SRC_CPU,
 	DIV_CPU0,
+	PWR_CTRL1,
+	PWR_CTRL2,
 	SRC_CORE1,
 	SRC_TOP0,
 	SRC_TOP2,
@@ -686,6 +707,7 @@ static struct of_device_id ext_clk_match[] __initdata = {
 /* register exynox5250 clocks */
 static void __init exynos5250_clk_init(struct device_node *np)
 {
+	unsigned int tmp;
 	if (np) {
 		reg_base = of_iomap(np, 0);
 		if (!reg_base)
@@ -722,6 +744,26 @@ static void __init exynos5250_clk_init(struct device_node *np)
 	samsung_clk_register_gate(exynos5250_gate_clks,
 			ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5250_gate_clks));
 
+	/*
+	 * Enable arm clock down (in idle) and set arm divider
+	 * ratios in WFI/WFE state.
+	 */
+	tmp = (PWR_CTRL1_CORE2_DOWN_RATIO | PWR_CTRL1_CORE1_DOWN_RATIO |
+		PWR_CTRL1_DIV2_DOWN_EN | PWR_CTRL1_DIV1_DOWN_EN |
+		PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFE | PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFE |
+		PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFI | PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFI);
+	__raw_writel(tmp, reg_base + PWR_CTRL1);
+
+	/*
+	 * Enable arm clock up (on exiting idle). Set arm divider
+	 * ratios when not in idle along with the standby duration
+	 * ratios.
+	 */
+	tmp = (PWR_CTRL2_DIV2_UP_EN | PWR_CTRL2_DIV1_UP_EN |
+		PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY2_VAL | PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY1_VAL |
+		PWR_CTRL2_CORE2_UP_RATIO | PWR_CTRL2_CORE1_UP_RATIO);
+	__raw_writel(tmp, reg_base + PWR_CTRL2);
+
 	exynos5250_clk_sleep_init();
 
 	pr_info("Exynos5250: clock setup completed, armclk=%ld\n",
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 01/20] ARM: EXYNOS: Move arm core power down clock to exynos5250 common clock

[Daniel Lezcano]

From: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@samsung.com>

Now with common clock support added for exynos5250 it is necessary to move
this code to exynos5250 common clock driver as clock registers should be
handled there. This change is tested in exynos5250 based arndale platform.

Cc: Abhilash Kesavan <a.kesavan@samsung.com>
Cc: Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsugn.com>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@samsung.com>
[t.figa: Rebased onto current kernel sources.]
Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c       |   54 ----------------------------------
 drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c |   42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index b530231..3e260ba 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -40,25 +40,6 @@
 
 #define S5P_CHECK_AFTR		0xFCBA0D10
 
-#define EXYNOS5_PWR_CTRL1			(S5P_VA_CMU + 0x01020)
-#define EXYNOS5_PWR_CTRL2			(S5P_VA_CMU + 0x01024)
-
-#define PWR_CTRL1_CORE2_DOWN_RATIO		(7 << 28)
-#define PWR_CTRL1_CORE1_DOWN_RATIO		(7 << 16)
-#define PWR_CTRL1_DIV2_DOWN_EN			(1 << 9)
-#define PWR_CTRL1_DIV1_DOWN_EN			(1 << 8)
-#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFE			(1 << 5)
-#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFE			(1 << 4)
-#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFI			(1 << 1)
-#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFI			(1 << 0)
-
-#define PWR_CTRL2_DIV2_UP_EN			(1 << 25)
-#define PWR_CTRL2_DIV1_UP_EN			(1 << 24)
-#define PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY2_VAL		(1 << 16)
-#define PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY1_VAL		(1 << 8)
-#define PWR_CTRL2_CORE2_UP_RATIO		(1 << 4)
-#define PWR_CTRL2_CORE1_UP_RATIO		(1 << 0)
-
 static int exynos4_enter_lowpower(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 				struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
 				int index);
@@ -181,46 +162,11 @@ static int exynos4_enter_lowpower(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 		return exynos4_enter_core0_aftr(dev, drv, new_index);
 }
 
-static void __init exynos5_core_down_clk(void)
-{
-	unsigned int tmp;
-
-	/*
-	 * Enable arm clock down (in idle) and set arm divider
-	 * ratios in WFI/WFE state.
-	 */
-	tmp = PWR_CTRL1_CORE2_DOWN_RATIO | \
-	      PWR_CTRL1_CORE1_DOWN_RATIO | \
-	      PWR_CTRL1_DIV2_DOWN_EN	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL1_DIV1_DOWN_EN	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFE	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFE	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFI	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFI;
-	__raw_writel(tmp, EXYNOS5_PWR_CTRL1);
-
-	/*
-	 * Enable arm clock up (on exiting idle). Set arm divider
-	 * ratios when not in idle along with the standby duration
-	 * ratios.
-	 */
-	tmp = PWR_CTRL2_DIV2_UP_EN	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL2_DIV1_UP_EN	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY2_VAL | \
-	      PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY1_VAL | \
-	      PWR_CTRL2_CORE2_UP_RATIO	 | \
-	      PWR_CTRL2_CORE1_UP_RATIO;
-	__raw_writel(tmp, EXYNOS5_PWR_CTRL2);
-}
-
 static int exynos_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	int cpu_id, ret;
 	struct cpuidle_device *device;
 
-	if (soc_is_exynos5250())
-		exynos5_core_down_clk();
-
 	if (soc_is_exynos5440())
 		exynos4_idle_driver.state_count = 1;
 
diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c
index e7ee442..2bb4625 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c
@@ -24,6 +24,8 @@
 #define APLL_CON0		0x100
 #define SRC_CPU			0x200
 #define DIV_CPU0		0x500
+#define PWR_CTRL1		0x1020
+#define PWR_CTRL2		0x1024
 #define MPLL_LOCK		0x4000
 #define MPLL_CON0		0x4100
 #define SRC_CORE1		0x4204
@@ -80,6 +82,23 @@
 #define SRC_CDREX		0x20200
 #define PLL_DIV2_SEL		0x20a24
 
+/*Below definitions are used for PWR_CTRL settings*/
+#define PWR_CTRL1_CORE2_DOWN_RATIO		(7 << 28)
+#define PWR_CTRL1_CORE1_DOWN_RATIO		(7 << 16)
+#define PWR_CTRL1_DIV2_DOWN_EN			(1 << 9)
+#define PWR_CTRL1_DIV1_DOWN_EN			(1 << 8)
+#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFE			(1 << 5)
+#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFE			(1 << 4)
+#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFI			(1 << 1)
+#define PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFI			(1 << 0)
+
+#define PWR_CTRL2_DIV2_UP_EN			(1 << 25)
+#define PWR_CTRL2_DIV1_UP_EN			(1 << 24)
+#define PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY2_VAL		(1 << 16)
+#define PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY1_VAL		(1 << 8)
+#define PWR_CTRL2_CORE2_UP_RATIO		(1 << 4)
+#define PWR_CTRL2_CORE1_UP_RATIO		(1 << 0)
+
 /* list of PLLs to be registered */
 enum exynos5250_plls {
 	apll, mpll, cpll, epll, vpll, gpll, bpll,
@@ -98,6 +117,8 @@ static struct samsung_clk_reg_dump *exynos5250_save;
 static unsigned long exynos5250_clk_regs[] __initdata = {
 	SRC_CPU,
 	DIV_CPU0,
+	PWR_CTRL1,
+	PWR_CTRL2,
 	SRC_CORE1,
 	SRC_TOP0,
 	SRC_TOP2,
@@ -686,6 +707,7 @@ static struct of_device_id ext_clk_match[] __initdata = {
 /* register exynox5250 clocks */
 static void __init exynos5250_clk_init(struct device_node *np)
 {
+	unsigned int tmp;
 	if (np) {
 		reg_base = of_iomap(np, 0);
 		if (!reg_base)
@@ -722,6 +744,26 @@ static void __init exynos5250_clk_init(struct device_node *np)
 	samsung_clk_register_gate(exynos5250_gate_clks,
 			ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5250_gate_clks));
 
+	/*
+	 * Enable arm clock down (in idle) and set arm divider
+	 * ratios in WFI/WFE state.
+	 */
+	tmp = (PWR_CTRL1_CORE2_DOWN_RATIO | PWR_CTRL1_CORE1_DOWN_RATIO |
+		PWR_CTRL1_DIV2_DOWN_EN | PWR_CTRL1_DIV1_DOWN_EN |
+		PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFE | PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFE |
+		PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE1_WFI | PWR_CTRL1_USE_CORE0_WFI);
+	__raw_writel(tmp, reg_base + PWR_CTRL1);
+
+	/*
+	 * Enable arm clock up (on exiting idle). Set arm divider
+	 * ratios when not in idle along with the standby duration
+	 * ratios.
+	 */
+	tmp = (PWR_CTRL2_DIV2_UP_EN | PWR_CTRL2_DIV1_UP_EN |
+		PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY2_VAL | PWR_CTRL2_DUR_STANDBY1_VAL |
+		PWR_CTRL2_CORE2_UP_RATIO | PWR_CTRL2_CORE1_UP_RATIO);
+	__raw_writel(tmp, reg_base + PWR_CTRL2);
+
 	exynos5250_clk_sleep_init();
 
 	pr_info("Exynos5250: clock setup completed, armclk=%ld\n",
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 02/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Prevent forward declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

Move the structure below the 'exynos4_enter_lowpower' function so no more
need of forward declaration.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   40 ++++++++++++++++++----------------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 3e260ba..17df0d8 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -40,30 +40,8 @@
 
 #define S5P_CHECK_AFTR		0xFCBA0D10
 
-static int exynos4_enter_lowpower(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
-				struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
-				int index);
-
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, exynos4_cpuidle_device);
 
-static struct cpuidle_driver exynos4_idle_driver = {
-	.name			= "exynos4_idle",
-	.owner			= THIS_MODULE,
-	.states = {
-		[0] = ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE,
-		[1] = {
-			.enter			= exynos4_enter_lowpower,
-			.exit_latency		= 300,
-			.target_residency	= 100000,
-			.flags			= CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID,
-			.name			= "C1",
-			.desc			= "ARM power down",
-		},
-	},
-	.state_count = 2,
-	.safe_state_index = 0,
-};
-
 /* Ext-GIC nIRQ/nFIQ is the only wakeup source in AFTR */
 static void exynos4_set_wakeupmask(void)
 {
@@ -162,6 +140,24 @@ static int exynos4_enter_lowpower(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 		return exynos4_enter_core0_aftr(dev, drv, new_index);
 }
 
+static struct cpuidle_driver exynos4_idle_driver = {
+	.name			= "exynos4_idle",
+	.owner			= THIS_MODULE,
+	.states = {
+		[0] = ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE,
+		[1] = {
+			.enter			= exynos4_enter_lowpower,
+			.exit_latency		= 300,
+			.target_residency	= 100000,
+			.flags			= CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID,
+			.name			= "C1",
+			.desc			= "ARM power down",
+		},
+	},
+	.state_count = 2,
+	.safe_state_index = 0,
+};
+
 static int exynos_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	int cpu_id, ret;
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 02/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Prevent forward declaration

[Daniel Lezcano]

Move the structure below the 'exynos4_enter_lowpower' function so no more
need of forward declaration.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   40 ++++++++++++++++++----------------------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 3e260ba..17df0d8 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -40,30 +40,8 @@
 
 #define S5P_CHECK_AFTR		0xFCBA0D10
 
-static int exynos4_enter_lowpower(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
-				struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
-				int index);
-
 static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, exynos4_cpuidle_device);
 
-static struct cpuidle_driver exynos4_idle_driver = {
-	.name			= "exynos4_idle",
-	.owner			= THIS_MODULE,
-	.states = {
-		[0] = ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE,
-		[1] = {
-			.enter			= exynos4_enter_lowpower,
-			.exit_latency		= 300,
-			.target_residency	= 100000,
-			.flags			= CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID,
-			.name			= "C1",
-			.desc			= "ARM power down",
-		},
-	},
-	.state_count = 2,
-	.safe_state_index = 0,
-};
-
 /* Ext-GIC nIRQ/nFIQ is the only wakeup source in AFTR */
 static void exynos4_set_wakeupmask(void)
 {
@@ -162,6 +140,24 @@ static int exynos4_enter_lowpower(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 		return exynos4_enter_core0_aftr(dev, drv, new_index);
 }
 
+static struct cpuidle_driver exynos4_idle_driver = {
+	.name			= "exynos4_idle",
+	.owner			= THIS_MODULE,
+	.states = {
+		[0] = ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE,
+		[1] = {
+			.enter			= exynos4_enter_lowpower,
+			.exit_latency		= 300,
+			.target_residency	= 100000,
+			.flags			= CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID,
+			.name			= "C1",
+			.desc			= "ARM power down",
+		},
+	},
+	.state_count = 2,
+	.safe_state_index = 0,
+};
+
 static int exynos_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	int cpu_id, ret;
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 03/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Use cpuidle_register

[Daniel Lezcano]

Use the cpuidle generic function 'cpuidle_register'. That saves us from some
extra lines of code and unneeded variables.

A side effect of this change is a bug fix where before the cpuidle driver was
registered for each_online_cpu and now it is for each_possible_cpu.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   18 ++----------------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 17df0d8..61e1481 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -40,8 +40,6 @@
 
 #define S5P_CHECK_AFTR		0xFCBA0D10
 
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, exynos4_cpuidle_device);
-
 /* Ext-GIC nIRQ/nFIQ is the only wakeup source in AFTR */
 static void exynos4_set_wakeupmask(void)
 {
@@ -160,29 +158,17 @@ static struct cpuidle_driver exynos4_idle_driver = {
 
 static int exynos_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
-	int cpu_id, ret;
-	struct cpuidle_device *device;
+	int ret;
 
 	if (soc_is_exynos5440())
 		exynos4_idle_driver.state_count = 1;
 
-	ret = cpuidle_register_driver(&exynos4_idle_driver);
+	ret = cpuidle_register(&exynos4_idle_driver, NULL);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register cpuidle driver\n");
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	for_each_online_cpu(cpu_id) {
-		device = &per_cpu(exynos4_cpuidle_device, cpu_id);
-		device->cpu = cpu_id;
-
-		ret = cpuidle_register_device(device);
-		if (ret) {
-			dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register cpuidle device\n");
-			return ret;
-		}
-	}
-
 	return 0;
 }
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 03/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Use cpuidle_register

[Daniel Lezcano]

Use the cpuidle generic function 'cpuidle_register'. That saves us from some
extra lines of code and unneeded variables.

A side effect of this change is a bug fix where before the cpuidle driver was
registered for each_online_cpu and now it is for each_possible_cpu.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   18 ++----------------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 17df0d8..61e1481 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -40,8 +40,6 @@
 
 #define S5P_CHECK_AFTR		0xFCBA0D10
 
-static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct cpuidle_device, exynos4_cpuidle_device);
-
 /* Ext-GIC nIRQ/nFIQ is the only wakeup source in AFTR */
 static void exynos4_set_wakeupmask(void)
 {
@@ -160,29 +158,17 @@ static struct cpuidle_driver exynos4_idle_driver = {
 
 static int exynos_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
-	int cpu_id, ret;
-	struct cpuidle_device *device;
+	int ret;
 
 	if (soc_is_exynos5440())
 		exynos4_idle_driver.state_count = 1;
 
-	ret = cpuidle_register_driver(&exynos4_idle_driver);
+	ret = cpuidle_register(&exynos4_idle_driver, NULL);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register cpuidle driver\n");
 		return ret;
 	}
 
-	for_each_online_cpu(cpu_id) {
-		device = &per_cpu(exynos4_cpuidle_device, cpu_id);
-		device->cpu = cpu_id;
-
-		ret = cpuidle_register_device(device);
-		if (ret) {
-			dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register cpuidle device\n");
-			return ret;
-		}
-	}
-
 	return 0;
 }
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 04/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Change function name prefix

[Daniel Lezcano]

The driver was initially written for exynos4 but the driver is used also for
exynos5.

Change the function prefix name exynos4 -> exynos

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   22 +++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 61e1481..f565186 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* linux/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/cpuidle.c
+/* linux/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
  *
  * Copyright (c) 2011 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  *		http://www.samsung.com
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
 #define S5P_CHECK_AFTR		0xFCBA0D10
 
 /* Ext-GIC nIRQ/nFIQ is the only wakeup source in AFTR */
-static void exynos4_set_wakeupmask(void)
+static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(void)
 {
 	__raw_writel(0x0000ff3e, S5P_WAKEUP_MASK);
 }
@@ -72,13 +72,13 @@ static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 	return 1;
 }
 
-static int exynos4_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
+static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 				struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
 				int index)
 {
 	unsigned long tmp;
 
-	exynos4_set_wakeupmask();
+	exynos_set_wakeupmask();
 
 	/* Set value of power down register for aftr mode */
 	exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(SYS_AFTR);
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ static int exynos4_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 	return index;
 }
 
-static int exynos4_enter_lowpower(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
+static int exynos_enter_lowpower(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 				struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
 				int index)
 {
@@ -135,16 +135,16 @@ static int exynos4_enter_lowpower(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 	if (new_index == 0)
 		return arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(dev, drv, new_index);
 	else
-		return exynos4_enter_core0_aftr(dev, drv, new_index);
+		return exynos_enter_core0_aftr(dev, drv, new_index);
 }
 
-static struct cpuidle_driver exynos4_idle_driver = {
-	.name			= "exynos4_idle",
+static struct cpuidle_driver exynos_idle_driver = {
+	.name			= "exynos_idle",
 	.owner			= THIS_MODULE,
 	.states = {
 		[0] = ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE,
 		[1] = {
-			.enter			= exynos4_enter_lowpower,
+			.enter			= exynos_enter_lowpower,
 			.exit_latency		= 300,
 			.target_residency	= 100000,
 			.flags			= CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID,
@@ -161,9 +161,9 @@ static int exynos_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	int ret;
 
 	if (soc_is_exynos5440())
-		exynos4_idle_driver.state_count = 1;
+		exynos_idle_driver.state_count = 1;
 
-	ret = cpuidle_register(&exynos4_idle_driver, NULL);
+	ret = cpuidle_register(&exynos_idle_driver, NULL);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register cpuidle driver\n");
 		return ret;
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 04/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Change function name prefix

[Daniel Lezcano]

The driver was initially written for exynos4 but the driver is used also for
exynos5.

Change the function prefix name exynos4 -> exynos

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   22 +++++++++++-----------
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 61e1481..f565186 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-/* linux/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/cpuidle.c
+/* linux/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
  *
  * Copyright (c) 2011 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  *		http://www.samsung.com
@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
 #define S5P_CHECK_AFTR		0xFCBA0D10
 
 /* Ext-GIC nIRQ/nFIQ is the only wakeup source in AFTR */
-static void exynos4_set_wakeupmask(void)
+static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(void)
 {
 	__raw_writel(0x0000ff3e, S5P_WAKEUP_MASK);
 }
@@ -72,13 +72,13 @@ static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 	return 1;
 }
 
-static int exynos4_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
+static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 				struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
 				int index)
 {
 	unsigned long tmp;
 
-	exynos4_set_wakeupmask();
+	exynos_set_wakeupmask();
 
 	/* Set value of power down register for aftr mode */
 	exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(SYS_AFTR);
@@ -122,7 +122,7 @@ static int exynos4_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 	return index;
 }
 
-static int exynos4_enter_lowpower(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
+static int exynos_enter_lowpower(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 				struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
 				int index)
 {
@@ -135,16 +135,16 @@ static int exynos4_enter_lowpower(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 	if (new_index == 0)
 		return arm_cpuidle_simple_enter(dev, drv, new_index);
 	else
-		return exynos4_enter_core0_aftr(dev, drv, new_index);
+		return exynos_enter_core0_aftr(dev, drv, new_index);
 }
 
-static struct cpuidle_driver exynos4_idle_driver = {
-	.name			= "exynos4_idle",
+static struct cpuidle_driver exynos_idle_driver = {
+	.name			= "exynos_idle",
 	.owner			= THIS_MODULE,
 	.states = {
 		[0] = ARM_CPUIDLE_WFI_STATE,
 		[1] = {
-			.enter			= exynos4_enter_lowpower,
+			.enter			= exynos_enter_lowpower,
 			.exit_latency		= 300,
 			.target_residency	= 100000,
 			.flags			= CPUIDLE_FLAG_TIME_VALID,
@@ -161,9 +161,9 @@ static int exynos_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	int ret;
 
 	if (soc_is_exynos5440())
-		exynos4_idle_driver.state_count = 1;
+		exynos_idle_driver.state_count = 1;
 
-	ret = cpuidle_register(&exynos4_idle_driver, NULL);
+	ret = cpuidle_register(&exynos_idle_driver, NULL);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register cpuidle driver\n");
 		return ret;
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 05/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate register access inside a function

[Daniel Lezcano]

That makes the code cleaner and encapsulted. The function will be reused in the
next patch.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c |   65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index 15af0ce..adfdf4b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -103,6 +103,42 @@ static int exynos_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *data, unsigned int state)
 /* For Cortex-A9 Diagnostic and Power control register */
 static unsigned int save_arm_register[2];
 
+static void exynos_cpu_save_register(void)
+{
+	unsigned long tmp;
+
+	/* Save Power control register */
+	asm ("mrc p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 0"
+	     : "=r" (tmp) : : "cc");
+
+	save_arm_register[0] = tmp;
+
+	/* Save Diagnostic register */
+	asm ("mrc p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 1"
+	     : "=r" (tmp) : : "cc");
+
+	save_arm_register[1] = tmp;
+}
+
+static void exynos_cpu_restore_register(void)
+{
+	unsigned long tmp;
+
+	/* Restore Power control register */
+	tmp = save_arm_register[0];
+
+	asm volatile ("mcr p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 0"
+		      : : "r" (tmp)
+		      : "cc");
+
+	/* Restore Diagnostic register */
+	tmp = save_arm_register[1];
+
+	asm volatile ("mcr p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 1"
+		      : : "r" (tmp)
+		      : "cc");
+}
+
 static int exynos_cpu_suspend(unsigned long arg)
 {
 #ifdef CONFIG_CACHE_L2X0
@@ -162,17 +198,8 @@ static int exynos_pm_suspend(void)
 	tmp = (S5P_USE_STANDBY_WFI0 | S5P_USE_STANDBY_WFE0);
 	__raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_OPTION);
 
-	if (!soc_is_exynos5250()) {
-		/* Save Power control register */
-		asm ("mrc p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 0"
-		     : "=r" (tmp) : : "cc");
-		save_arm_register[0] = tmp;
-
-		/* Save Diagnostic register */
-		asm ("mrc p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 1"
-		     : "=r" (tmp) : : "cc");
-		save_arm_register[1] = tmp;
-	}
+	if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
+		exynos_cpu_save_register();
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -196,19 +223,9 @@ static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
 		/* No need to perform below restore code */
 		goto early_wakeup;
 	}
-	if (!soc_is_exynos5250()) {
-		/* Restore Power control register */
-		tmp = save_arm_register[0];
-		asm volatile ("mcr p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 0"
-			      : : "r" (tmp)
-			      : "cc");
-
-		/* Restore Diagnostic register */
-		tmp = save_arm_register[1];
-		asm volatile ("mcr p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 1"
-			      : : "r" (tmp)
-			      : "cc");
-	}
+
+	if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
+		exynos_cpu_restore_register();
 
 	/* For release retention */
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 05/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate register access inside a function

[Daniel Lezcano]

That makes the code cleaner and encapsulted. The function will be reused in the
next patch.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c |   65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index 15af0ce..adfdf4b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -103,6 +103,42 @@ static int exynos_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *data, unsigned int state)
 /* For Cortex-A9 Diagnostic and Power control register */
 static unsigned int save_arm_register[2];
 
+static void exynos_cpu_save_register(void)
+{
+	unsigned long tmp;
+
+	/* Save Power control register */
+	asm ("mrc p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 0"
+	     : "=r" (tmp) : : "cc");
+
+	save_arm_register[0] = tmp;
+
+	/* Save Diagnostic register */
+	asm ("mrc p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 1"
+	     : "=r" (tmp) : : "cc");
+
+	save_arm_register[1] = tmp;
+}
+
+static void exynos_cpu_restore_register(void)
+{
+	unsigned long tmp;
+
+	/* Restore Power control register */
+	tmp = save_arm_register[0];
+
+	asm volatile ("mcr p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 0"
+		      : : "r" (tmp)
+		      : "cc");
+
+	/* Restore Diagnostic register */
+	tmp = save_arm_register[1];
+
+	asm volatile ("mcr p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 1"
+		      : : "r" (tmp)
+		      : "cc");
+}
+
 static int exynos_cpu_suspend(unsigned long arg)
 {
 #ifdef CONFIG_CACHE_L2X0
@@ -162,17 +198,8 @@ static int exynos_pm_suspend(void)
 	tmp = (S5P_USE_STANDBY_WFI0 | S5P_USE_STANDBY_WFE0);
 	__raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_OPTION);
 
-	if (!soc_is_exynos5250()) {
-		/* Save Power control register */
-		asm ("mrc p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 0"
-		     : "=r" (tmp) : : "cc");
-		save_arm_register[0] = tmp;
-
-		/* Save Diagnostic register */
-		asm ("mrc p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 1"
-		     : "=r" (tmp) : : "cc");
-		save_arm_register[1] = tmp;
-	}
+	if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
+		exynos_cpu_save_register();
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -196,19 +223,9 @@ static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
 		/* No need to perform below restore code */
 		goto early_wakeup;
 	}
-	if (!soc_is_exynos5250()) {
-		/* Restore Power control register */
-		tmp = save_arm_register[0];
-		asm volatile ("mcr p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 0"
-			      : : "r" (tmp)
-			      : "cc");
-
-		/* Restore Diagnostic register */
-		tmp = save_arm_register[1];
-		asm volatile ("mcr p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 1"
-			      : : "r" (tmp)
-			      : "cc");
-	}
+
+	if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
+		exynos_cpu_restore_register();
 
 	/* For release retention */
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 06/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move some code inside the idle_finisher

[Daniel Lezcano]

Move the code around to differentiate different section of code and prepare it
to be factored out in the next patches.

The call order changed but hat doesn't have a side effect because they are
independent. The important call is cpu_do_idle() which must be done the last.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   17 +++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index f565186..4d8bcfd 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -68,7 +68,16 @@ static void restore_cpu_arch_register(void)
 
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 {
+	exynos_set_wakeupmask();
+
+	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(s3c_cpu_resume), REG_DIRECTGO_ADDR);
+	__raw_writel(S5P_CHECK_AFTR, REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG);
+
+	/* Set value of power down register for aftr mode */
+	exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(SYS_AFTR);
+
 	cpu_do_idle();
+
 	return 1;
 }
 
@@ -78,14 +87,6 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 {
 	unsigned long tmp;
 
-	exynos_set_wakeupmask();
-
-	/* Set value of power down register for aftr mode */
-	exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(SYS_AFTR);
-
-	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume), REG_DIRECTGO_ADDR);
-	__raw_writel(S5P_CHECK_AFTR, REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG);
-
 	save_cpu_arch_register();
 
 	/* Setting Central Sequence Register for power down mode */
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 06/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move some code inside the idle_finisher

[Daniel Lezcano]

Move the code around to differentiate different section of code and prepare it
to be factored out in the next patches.

The call order changed but hat doesn't have a side effect because they are
independent. The important call is cpu_do_idle() which must be done the last.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   17 +++++++++--------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index f565186..4d8bcfd 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -68,7 +68,16 @@ static void restore_cpu_arch_register(void)
 
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 {
+	exynos_set_wakeupmask();
+
+	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(s3c_cpu_resume), REG_DIRECTGO_ADDR);
+	__raw_writel(S5P_CHECK_AFTR, REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG);
+
+	/* Set value of power down register for aftr mode */
+	exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(SYS_AFTR);
+
 	cpu_do_idle();
+
 	return 1;
 }
 
@@ -78,14 +87,6 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 {
 	unsigned long tmp;
 
-	exynos_set_wakeupmask();
-
-	/* Set value of power down register for aftr mode */
-	exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(SYS_AFTR);
-
-	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume), REG_DIRECTGO_ADDR);
-	__raw_writel(S5P_CHECK_AFTR, REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG);
-
 	save_cpu_arch_register();
 
 	/* Setting Central Sequence Register for power down mode */
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 07/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Fix S5P_WAKEUP_STAT call

[Daniel Lezcano]

This function should be called only when the powerdown sequence fails.

Even if the current code does not hurt, by moving this line, we have the same
code than the one in pm.c.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |    5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 4d8bcfd..346c2d0 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -115,11 +115,10 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 	if (!(tmp & S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG)) {
 		tmp |= S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
 		__raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
+		/* Clear wakeup state register */
+		__raw_writel(0x0, S5P_WAKEUP_STAT);
 	}
 
-	/* Clear wakeup state register */
-	__raw_writel(0x0, S5P_WAKEUP_STAT);
-
 	return index;
 }
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 07/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Fix S5P_WAKEUP_STAT call

[Daniel Lezcano]

This function should be called only when the powerdown sequence fails.

Even if the current code does not hurt, by moving this line, we have the same
code than the one in pm.c.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |    5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 4d8bcfd..346c2d0 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -115,11 +115,10 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 	if (!(tmp & S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG)) {
 		tmp |= S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
 		__raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
+		/* Clear wakeup state register */
+		__raw_writel(0x0, S5P_WAKEUP_STAT);
 	}
 
-	/* Clear wakeup state register */
-	__raw_writel(0x0, S5P_WAKEUP_STAT);
-
 	return index;
 }
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 08/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Use the cpu_pm notifier

[Daniel Lezcano]

Use the cpu_pm_enter/exit notifier to group some pm code inside the pm file.

The save and restore code is duplicated across pm.c and cpuidle.c. By using
the cpu_pm notifier, we can factor out the routine.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   24 ------------------------
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |   29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 346c2d0..aa8ab1b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -46,26 +46,6 @@ static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(void)
 	__raw_writel(0x0000ff3e, S5P_WAKEUP_MASK);
 }
 
-static unsigned int g_pwr_ctrl, g_diag_reg;
-
-static void save_cpu_arch_register(void)
-{
-	/*read power control register*/
-	asm("mrc p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 0" : "=r"(g_pwr_ctrl) : : "cc");
-	/*read diagnostic register*/
-	asm("mrc p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 1" : "=r"(g_diag_reg) : : "cc");
-	return;
-}
-
-static void restore_cpu_arch_register(void)
-{
-	/*write power control register*/
-	asm("mcr p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 0" : : "r"(g_pwr_ctrl) : "cc");
-	/*write diagnostic register*/
-	asm("mcr p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 1" : : "r"(g_diag_reg) : "cc");
-	return;
-}
-
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 {
 	exynos_set_wakeupmask();
@@ -87,8 +67,6 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 {
 	unsigned long tmp;
 
-	save_cpu_arch_register();
-
 	/* Setting Central Sequence Register for power down mode */
 	tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
 	tmp &= ~S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
@@ -103,8 +81,6 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 #endif
 	cpu_pm_exit();
 
-	restore_cpu_arch_register();
-
 	/*
 	 * If PMU failed while entering sleep mode, WFI will be
 	 * ignored by PMU and then exiting cpu_do_idle().
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index adfdf4b..67d75fe 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/suspend.h>
 #include <linux/syscore_ops.h>
+#include <linux/cpu_pm.h>
 #include <linux/io.h>
 #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
 #include <linux/err.h>
@@ -321,10 +322,38 @@ static const struct platform_suspend_ops exynos_suspend_ops = {
 	.valid		= suspend_valid_only_mem,
 };
 
+static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
+				  unsigned long cmd, void *v)
+{
+	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
+
+	switch (cmd) {
+	case CPU_PM_ENTER:
+		if (cpu == 0) {
+			exynos_cpu_save_register();
+		}
+		break;
+
+	case CPU_PM_EXIT:
+		if (cpu == 0) {
+			exynos_cpu_restore_register();
+		}
+		break;
+	}
+
+	return NOTIFY_OK;
+}
+
+static struct notifier_block exynos_cpu_pm_notifier_block = {
+	.notifier_call = exynos_cpu_pm_notifier,
+};
+
 void __init exynos_pm_init(void)
 {
 	u32 tmp;
 
+	cpu_pm_register_notifier(&exynos_cpu_pm_notifier_block);
+
 	/* Platform-specific GIC callback */
 	gic_arch_extn.irq_set_wake = exynos_irq_set_wake;
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 08/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Use the cpu_pm notifier

[Daniel Lezcano]

Use the cpu_pm_enter/exit notifier to group some pm code inside the pm file.

The save and restore code is duplicated across pm.c and cpuidle.c. By using
the cpu_pm notifier, we can factor out the routine.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   24 ------------------------
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |   29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 346c2d0..aa8ab1b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -46,26 +46,6 @@ static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(void)
 	__raw_writel(0x0000ff3e, S5P_WAKEUP_MASK);
 }
 
-static unsigned int g_pwr_ctrl, g_diag_reg;
-
-static void save_cpu_arch_register(void)
-{
-	/*read power control register*/
-	asm("mrc p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 0" : "=r"(g_pwr_ctrl) : : "cc");
-	/*read diagnostic register*/
-	asm("mrc p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 1" : "=r"(g_diag_reg) : : "cc");
-	return;
-}
-
-static void restore_cpu_arch_register(void)
-{
-	/*write power control register*/
-	asm("mcr p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 0" : : "r"(g_pwr_ctrl) : "cc");
-	/*write diagnostic register*/
-	asm("mcr p15, 0, %0, c15, c0, 1" : : "r"(g_diag_reg) : "cc");
-	return;
-}
-
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 {
 	exynos_set_wakeupmask();
@@ -87,8 +67,6 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 {
 	unsigned long tmp;
 
-	save_cpu_arch_register();
-
 	/* Setting Central Sequence Register for power down mode */
 	tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
 	tmp &= ~S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
@@ -103,8 +81,6 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 #endif
 	cpu_pm_exit();
 
-	restore_cpu_arch_register();
-
 	/*
 	 * If PMU failed while entering sleep mode, WFI will be
 	 * ignored by PMU and then exiting cpu_do_idle().
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index adfdf4b..67d75fe 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
 #include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/suspend.h>
 #include <linux/syscore_ops.h>
+#include <linux/cpu_pm.h>
 #include <linux/io.h>
 #include <linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h>
 #include <linux/err.h>
@@ -321,10 +322,38 @@ static const struct platform_suspend_ops exynos_suspend_ops = {
 	.valid		= suspend_valid_only_mem,
 };
 
+static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
+				  unsigned long cmd, void *v)
+{
+	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
+
+	switch (cmd) {
+	case CPU_PM_ENTER:
+		if (cpu == 0) {
+			exynos_cpu_save_register();
+		}
+		break;
+
+	case CPU_PM_EXIT:
+		if (cpu == 0) {
+			exynos_cpu_restore_register();
+		}
+		break;
+	}
+
+	return NOTIFY_OK;
+}
+
+static struct notifier_block exynos_cpu_pm_notifier_block = {
+	.notifier_call = exynos_cpu_pm_notifier,
+};
+
 void __init exynos_pm_init(void)
 {
 	u32 tmp;
 
+	cpu_pm_register_notifier(&exynos_cpu_pm_notifier_block);
+
 	/* Platform-specific GIC callback */
 	gic_arch_extn.irq_set_wake = exynos_irq_set_wake;
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 09/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move scu_enable in the cpu_pm notifier

[Daniel Lezcano]

We make the cpuidle code less arch dependent.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |    6 ------
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |    4 ++++
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index aa8ab1b..95826c6 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
 #include <linux/platform_device.h>
 
 #include <asm/proc-fns.h>
-#include <asm/smp_scu.h>
 #include <asm/suspend.h>
 #include <asm/unified.h>
 #include <asm/cpuidle.h>
@@ -74,11 +73,6 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 
 	cpu_pm_enter();
 	cpu_suspend(0, idle_finisher);
-
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-	if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
-		scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
-#endif
 	cpu_pm_exit();
 
 	/*
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index 67d75fe..aba577f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -336,6 +336,10 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
 
 	case CPU_PM_EXIT:
 		if (cpu == 0) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+			if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
+				scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
+#endif
 			exynos_cpu_restore_register();
 		}
 		break;
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 09/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move scu_enable in the cpu_pm notifier

[Daniel Lezcano]

We make the cpuidle code less arch dependent.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |    6 ------
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |    4 ++++
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index aa8ab1b..95826c6 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -18,7 +18,6 @@
 #include <linux/platform_device.h>
 
 #include <asm/proc-fns.h>
-#include <asm/smp_scu.h>
 #include <asm/suspend.h>
 #include <asm/unified.h>
 #include <asm/cpuidle.h>
@@ -74,11 +73,6 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 
 	cpu_pm_enter();
 	cpu_suspend(0, idle_finisher);
-
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
-	if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
-		scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
-#endif
 	cpu_pm_exit();
 
 	/*
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index 67d75fe..aba577f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -336,6 +336,10 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
 
 	case CPU_PM_EXIT:
 		if (cpu == 0) {
+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
+			if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
+				scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
+#endif
 			exynos_cpu_restore_register();
 		}
 		break;
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 10/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Remove ifdef for scu_enable

[Daniel Lezcano]

The scu_enable function is already a noop in the scu's header file is
CONFIG_SMP=n, so no need to use these macros in the code.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c |    4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index aba577f..9773a00 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
 
 	s3c_pm_do_restore_core(exynos_core_save, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_core_save));
 
-	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) && !soc_is_exynos5250())
+	if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
 		scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
 
 early_wakeup:
@@ -336,10 +336,8 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
 
 	case CPU_PM_EXIT:
 		if (cpu == 0) {
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 			if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
 				scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
-#endif
 			exynos_cpu_restore_register();
 		}
 		break;
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 10/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Remove ifdef for scu_enable

[Daniel Lezcano]

The scu_enable function is already a noop in the scu's header file is
CONFIG_SMP=n, so no need to use these macros in the code.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c |    4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index aba577f..9773a00 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -244,7 +244,7 @@ static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
 
 	s3c_pm_do_restore_core(exynos_core_save, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos_core_save));
 
-	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) && !soc_is_exynos5250())
+	if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
 		scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
 
 early_wakeup:
@@ -336,10 +336,8 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
 
 	case CPU_PM_EXIT:
 		if (cpu == 0) {
-#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
 			if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
 				scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
-#endif
 			exynos_cpu_restore_register();
 		}
 		break;
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 11/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass wakeup mask parameter to function

[Daniel Lezcano]

Pass the wakeup mask to 'exynos_set_wakeupmask' as this function could be used
for different idle states with different mask.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |    6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 95826c6..169db74 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -40,14 +40,14 @@
 #define S5P_CHECK_AFTR		0xFCBA0D10
 
 /* Ext-GIC nIRQ/nFIQ is the only wakeup source in AFTR */
-static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(void)
+static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(long mask)
 {
-	__raw_writel(0x0000ff3e, S5P_WAKEUP_MASK);
+	__raw_writel(mask, S5P_WAKEUP_MASK);
 }
 
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 {
-	exynos_set_wakeupmask();
+	exynos_set_wakeupmask(0x0000ff3e);
 
 	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(s3c_cpu_resume), REG_DIRECTGO_ADDR);
 	__raw_writel(S5P_CHECK_AFTR, REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG);
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 11/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass wakeup mask parameter to function

[Daniel Lezcano]

Pass the wakeup mask to 'exynos_set_wakeupmask' as this function could be used
for different idle states with different mask.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |    6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 95826c6..169db74 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -40,14 +40,14 @@
 #define S5P_CHECK_AFTR		0xFCBA0D10
 
 /* Ext-GIC nIRQ/nFIQ is the only wakeup source in AFTR */
-static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(void)
+static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(long mask)
 {
-	__raw_writel(0x0000ff3e, S5P_WAKEUP_MASK);
+	__raw_writel(mask, S5P_WAKEUP_MASK);
 }
 
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 {
-	exynos_set_wakeupmask();
+	exynos_set_wakeupmask(0x0000ff3e);
 
 	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(s3c_cpu_resume), REG_DIRECTGO_ADDR);
 	__raw_writel(S5P_CHECK_AFTR, REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG);
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 12/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate boot vector code into a function

[Daniel Lezcano]

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 169db74..f66ee4d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -45,13 +45,16 @@ static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(long mask)
 	__raw_writel(mask, S5P_WAKEUP_MASK);
 }
 
+static void exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(long flags)
+{
+	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume), REG_DIRECTGO_ADDR);
+	__raw_writel(flags, REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG);
+}
+
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 {
 	exynos_set_wakeupmask(0x0000ff3e);
-
-	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(s3c_cpu_resume), REG_DIRECTGO_ADDR);
-	__raw_writel(S5P_CHECK_AFTR, REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG);
-
+	exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(S5P_CHECK_AFTR);
 	/* Set value of power down register for aftr mode */
 	exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(SYS_AFTR);
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 12/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate boot vector code into a function

[Daniel Lezcano]

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 169db74..f66ee4d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -45,13 +45,16 @@ static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(long mask)
 	__raw_writel(mask, S5P_WAKEUP_MASK);
 }
 
+static void exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(long flags)
+{
+	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume), REG_DIRECTGO_ADDR);
+	__raw_writel(flags, REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG);
+}
+
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 {
 	exynos_set_wakeupmask(0x0000ff3e);
-
-	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(s3c_cpu_resume), REG_DIRECTGO_ADDR);
-	__raw_writel(S5P_CHECK_AFTR, REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG);
-
+	exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(S5P_CHECK_AFTR);
 	/* Set value of power down register for aftr mode */
 	exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(SYS_AFTR);
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 13/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Disable cpuidle for 5440

[Daniel Lezcano]

There is no point to register the cpuidle driver for the 5440 as it has only
one WFI state which is the default idle function when the cpuidle driver is
disabled.

By disabling cpuidle we prevent to enter to the governor computation for
nothing, thus saving a lot of processing time.

The only drawback is the statistic via sysfs on this state which is lost but
it is meaningless and it could be retrieved from the ftrace easily.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
Acked-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |    3 ---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c  |    3 +++
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index f66ee4d..95313ea 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -133,9 +133,6 @@ static int exynos_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	int ret;
 
-	if (soc_is_exynos5440())
-		exynos_idle_driver.state_count = 1;
-
 	ret = cpuidle_register(&exynos_idle_driver, NULL);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register cpuidle driver\n");
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
index b567361..fe8dac8 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
@@ -227,6 +227,9 @@ static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
 
 void __init exynos_cpuidle_init(void)
 {
+	if (soc_is_exynos5440())
+		return;
+
 	platform_device_register(&exynos_cpuidle);
 }
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 13/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Disable cpuidle for 5440

[Daniel Lezcano]

There is no point to register the cpuidle driver for the 5440 as it has only
one WFI state which is the default idle function when the cpuidle driver is
disabled.

By disabling cpuidle we prevent to enter to the governor computation for
nothing, thus saving a lot of processing time.

The only drawback is the statistic via sysfs on this state which is lost but
it is meaningless and it could be retrieved from the ftrace easily.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
Acked-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |    3 ---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c  |    3 +++
 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index f66ee4d..95313ea 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -133,9 +133,6 @@ static int exynos_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	int ret;
 
-	if (soc_is_exynos5440())
-		exynos_idle_driver.state_count = 1;
-
 	ret = cpuidle_register(&exynos_idle_driver, NULL);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register cpuidle driver\n");
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
index b567361..fe8dac8 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
@@ -227,6 +227,9 @@ static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
 
 void __init exynos_cpuidle_init(void)
 {
+	if (soc_is_exynos5440())
+		return;
+
 	platform_device_register(&exynos_cpuidle);
 }
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 14/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate the AFTR code into a function

[Daniel Lezcano]

Let's encapsulate the AFTR state specific call into a single function.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |    6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 95313ea..fe35fba 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -51,13 +51,17 @@ static void exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(long flags)
 	__raw_writel(flags, REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG);
 }
 
-static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
+static void exynos_enter_aftr(void)
 {
 	exynos_set_wakeupmask(0x0000ff3e);
 	exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(S5P_CHECK_AFTR);
 	/* Set value of power down register for aftr mode */
 	exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(SYS_AFTR);
+}
 
+static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
+{
+	exynos_enter_aftr();
 	cpu_do_idle();
 
 	return 1;
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 14/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate the AFTR code into a function

[Daniel Lezcano]

Let's encapsulate the AFTR state specific call into a single function.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |    6 +++++-
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 95313ea..fe35fba 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -51,13 +51,17 @@ static void exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(long flags)
 	__raw_writel(flags, REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG);
 }
 
-static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
+static void exynos_enter_aftr(void)
 {
 	exynos_set_wakeupmask(0x0000ff3e);
 	exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(S5P_CHECK_AFTR);
 	/* Set value of power down register for aftr mode */
 	exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(SYS_AFTR);
+}
 
+static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
+{
+	exynos_enter_aftr();
 	cpu_do_idle();
 
 	return 1;
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 15/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the AFTR state function into pm.c

[Daniel Lezcano]

In order to remove depedency on pm code, let's move the 'exynos_enter_aftr'
function into the pm.c file as well as the other helper functions.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h  |    1 +
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   29 -----------------------------
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |   29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
index 9ef3f83..30123a0 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
@@ -62,5 +62,6 @@ struct exynos_pmu_conf {
 };
 
 extern void exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(enum sys_powerdown mode);
+extern void exynos_enter_aftr(void);
 
 #endif /* __ARCH_ARM_MACH_EXYNOS_COMMON_H */
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index fe35fba..e6d813d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -30,35 +30,6 @@
 #include "common.h"
 #include "regs-pmu.h"
 
-#define REG_DIRECTGO_ADDR	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
-			S5P_INFORM7 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
-			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x24) : S5P_INFORM0))
-#define REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
-			S5P_INFORM6 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
-			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
-
-#define S5P_CHECK_AFTR		0xFCBA0D10
-
-/* Ext-GIC nIRQ/nFIQ is the only wakeup source in AFTR */
-static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(long mask)
-{
-	__raw_writel(mask, S5P_WAKEUP_MASK);
-}
-
-static void exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(long flags)
-{
-	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume), REG_DIRECTGO_ADDR);
-	__raw_writel(flags, REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG);
-}
-
-static void exynos_enter_aftr(void)
-{
-	exynos_set_wakeupmask(0x0000ff3e);
-	exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(S5P_CHECK_AFTR);
-	/* Set value of power down register for aftr mode */
-	exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(SYS_AFTR);
-}
-
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 {
 	exynos_enter_aftr();
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index 9773a00..50b6b4d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -101,6 +101,35 @@ static int exynos_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *data, unsigned int state)
 	return -ENOENT;
 }
 
+#define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_ADDR	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
+			S5P_INFORM7 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
+			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x24) : S5P_INFORM0))
+#define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_FLAG	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
+			S5P_INFORM6 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
+			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
+
+#define S5P_CHECK_AFTR 0xFCBA0D10
+
+/* Ext-GIC nIRQ/nFIQ is the only wakeup source in AFTR */
+static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(long mask)
+{
+	__raw_writel(mask, S5P_WAKEUP_MASK);
+}
+
+static void exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(long flags)
+{
+	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume), EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_ADDR);
+	__raw_writel(flags, EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_FLAG);
+}
+
+void exynos_enter_aftr(void)
+{
+	exynos_set_wakeupmask(0x0000ff3e);
+	exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(S5P_CHECK_AFTR);
+	/* Set value of power down register for aftr mode */
+	exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(SYS_AFTR);
+}
+
 /* For Cortex-A9 Diagnostic and Power control register */
 static unsigned int save_arm_register[2];
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 15/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the AFTR state function into pm.c

[Daniel Lezcano]

In order to remove depedency on pm code, let's move the 'exynos_enter_aftr'
function into the pm.c file as well as the other helper functions.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h  |    1 +
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   29 -----------------------------
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |   29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 3 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
index 9ef3f83..30123a0 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
@@ -62,5 +62,6 @@ struct exynos_pmu_conf {
 };
 
 extern void exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(enum sys_powerdown mode);
+extern void exynos_enter_aftr(void);
 
 #endif /* __ARCH_ARM_MACH_EXYNOS_COMMON_H */
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index fe35fba..e6d813d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -30,35 +30,6 @@
 #include "common.h"
 #include "regs-pmu.h"
 
-#define REG_DIRECTGO_ADDR	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
-			S5P_INFORM7 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
-			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x24) : S5P_INFORM0))
-#define REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
-			S5P_INFORM6 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
-			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
-
-#define S5P_CHECK_AFTR		0xFCBA0D10
-
-/* Ext-GIC nIRQ/nFIQ is the only wakeup source in AFTR */
-static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(long mask)
-{
-	__raw_writel(mask, S5P_WAKEUP_MASK);
-}
-
-static void exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(long flags)
-{
-	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume), REG_DIRECTGO_ADDR);
-	__raw_writel(flags, REG_DIRECTGO_FLAG);
-}
-
-static void exynos_enter_aftr(void)
-{
-	exynos_set_wakeupmask(0x0000ff3e);
-	exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(S5P_CHECK_AFTR);
-	/* Set value of power down register for aftr mode */
-	exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(SYS_AFTR);
-}
-
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 {
 	exynos_enter_aftr();
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index 9773a00..50b6b4d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -101,6 +101,35 @@ static int exynos_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *data, unsigned int state)
 	return -ENOENT;
 }
 
+#define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_ADDR	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
+			S5P_INFORM7 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
+			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x24) : S5P_INFORM0))
+#define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_FLAG	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
+			S5P_INFORM6 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
+			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
+
+#define S5P_CHECK_AFTR 0xFCBA0D10
+
+/* Ext-GIC nIRQ/nFIQ is the only wakeup source in AFTR */
+static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(long mask)
+{
+	__raw_writel(mask, S5P_WAKEUP_MASK);
+}
+
+static void exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(long flags)
+{
+	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume), EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_ADDR);
+	__raw_writel(flags, EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_FLAG);
+}
+
+void exynos_enter_aftr(void)
+{
+	exynos_set_wakeupmask(0x0000ff3e);
+	exynos_cpu_set_boot_vector(S5P_CHECK_AFTR);
+	/* Set value of power down register for aftr mode */
+	exynos_sys_powerdown_conf(SYS_AFTR);
+}
+
 /* For Cortex-A9 Diagnostic and Power control register */
 static unsigned int save_arm_register[2];
 
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 16/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the power sequence call in the cpu_pm notifier

[Daniel Lezcano]

The code to initiate and exit the powerdown sequence is the same in pm.c and
cpuidle.c.

Let's split the common part in the pm.c and reuse it from the cpu_pm notifier.

That is one more step forward to make the cpuidle driver arch indenpendant.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   22 ----------------------
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index e6d813d..02609ac 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -28,7 +28,6 @@
 #include <mach/map.h>
 
 #include "common.h"
-#include "regs-pmu.h"
 
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 {
@@ -42,31 +41,10 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 				struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
 				int index)
 {
-	unsigned long tmp;
-
-	/* Setting Central Sequence Register for power down mode */
-	tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
-	tmp &= ~S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
-	__raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
-
 	cpu_pm_enter();
 	cpu_suspend(0, idle_finisher);
 	cpu_pm_exit();
 
-	/*
-	 * If PMU failed while entering sleep mode, WFI will be
-	 * ignored by PMU and then exiting cpu_do_idle().
-	 * S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG bit will not be set automatically
-	 * in this situation.
-	 */
-	tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
-	if (!(tmp & S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG)) {
-		tmp |= S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
-		__raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
-		/* Clear wakeup state register */
-		__raw_writel(0x0, S5P_WAKEUP_STAT);
-	}
-
 	return index;
 }
 
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index 50b6b4d..6d9ef69 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -213,15 +213,21 @@ static void exynos_pm_prepare(void)
 	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume), S5P_INFORM0);
 }
 
-static int exynos_pm_suspend(void)
+static void exynos_pm_central_suspend(void)
 {
 	unsigned long tmp;
 
 	/* Setting Central Sequence Register for power down mode */
-
 	tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
 	tmp &= ~S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
 	__raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
+}
+
+static int exynos_pm_suspend(void)
+{
+	unsigned long tmp;
+
+	exynos_pm_central_suspend();
 
 	/* Setting SEQ_OPTION register */
 
@@ -234,7 +240,7 @@ static int exynos_pm_suspend(void)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
+static int exynos_pm_central_resume(void)
 {
 	unsigned long tmp;
 
@@ -251,9 +257,17 @@ static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
 		/* clear the wakeup state register */
 		__raw_writel(0x0, S5P_WAKEUP_STAT);
 		/* No need to perform below restore code */
-		goto early_wakeup;
+		return -1;
 	}
 
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
+{
+	if (exynos_pm_central_resume())
+		goto early_wakeup;
+
 	if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
 		exynos_cpu_restore_register();
 
@@ -359,6 +373,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
 	switch (cmd) {
 	case CPU_PM_ENTER:
 		if (cpu == 0) {
+			exynos_pm_central_suspend();
 			exynos_cpu_save_register();
 		}
 		break;
@@ -368,6 +383,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
 			if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
 				scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
 			exynos_cpu_restore_register();
+			exynos_pm_central_resume();
 		}
 		break;
 	}
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 16/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the power sequence call in the cpu_pm notifier

[Daniel Lezcano]

The code to initiate and exit the powerdown sequence is the same in pm.c and
cpuidle.c.

Let's split the common part in the pm.c and reuse it from the cpu_pm notifier.

That is one more step forward to make the cpuidle driver arch indenpendant.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   22 ----------------------
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index e6d813d..02609ac 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -28,7 +28,6 @@
 #include <mach/map.h>
 
 #include "common.h"
-#include "regs-pmu.h"
 
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 {
@@ -42,31 +41,10 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
 				struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
 				int index)
 {
-	unsigned long tmp;
-
-	/* Setting Central Sequence Register for power down mode */
-	tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
-	tmp &= ~S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
-	__raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
-
 	cpu_pm_enter();
 	cpu_suspend(0, idle_finisher);
 	cpu_pm_exit();
 
-	/*
-	 * If PMU failed while entering sleep mode, WFI will be
-	 * ignored by PMU and then exiting cpu_do_idle().
-	 * S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG bit will not be set automatically
-	 * in this situation.
-	 */
-	tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
-	if (!(tmp & S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG)) {
-		tmp |= S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
-		__raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
-		/* Clear wakeup state register */
-		__raw_writel(0x0, S5P_WAKEUP_STAT);
-	}
-
 	return index;
 }
 
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index 50b6b4d..6d9ef69 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -213,15 +213,21 @@ static void exynos_pm_prepare(void)
 	__raw_writel(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume), S5P_INFORM0);
 }
 
-static int exynos_pm_suspend(void)
+static void exynos_pm_central_suspend(void)
 {
 	unsigned long tmp;
 
 	/* Setting Central Sequence Register for power down mode */
-
 	tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
 	tmp &= ~S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
 	__raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
+}
+
+static int exynos_pm_suspend(void)
+{
+	unsigned long tmp;
+
+	exynos_pm_central_suspend();
 
 	/* Setting SEQ_OPTION register */
 
@@ -234,7 +240,7 @@ static int exynos_pm_suspend(void)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
+static int exynos_pm_central_resume(void)
 {
 	unsigned long tmp;
 
@@ -251,9 +257,17 @@ static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
 		/* clear the wakeup state register */
 		__raw_writel(0x0, S5P_WAKEUP_STAT);
 		/* No need to perform below restore code */
-		goto early_wakeup;
+		return -1;
 	}
 
+	return 0;
+}
+
+static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
+{
+	if (exynos_pm_central_resume())
+		goto early_wakeup;
+
 	if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
 		exynos_cpu_restore_register();
 
@@ -359,6 +373,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
 	switch (cmd) {
 	case CPU_PM_ENTER:
 		if (cpu == 0) {
+			exynos_pm_central_suspend();
 			exynos_cpu_save_register();
 		}
 		break;
@@ -368,6 +383,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
 			if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
 				scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
 			exynos_cpu_restore_register();
+			exynos_pm_central_resume();
 		}
 		break;
 	}
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 17/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move S5P_CHECK_SLEEP into pm.c

[Daniel Lezcano]

This macro is only used there.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c       |    3 ++-
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h |    2 --
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index 6d9ef69..b380d48 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -108,7 +108,8 @@ static int exynos_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *data, unsigned int state)
 			S5P_INFORM6 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
 			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
 
-#define S5P_CHECK_AFTR 0xFCBA0D10
+#define S5P_CHECK_AFTR  0xFCBA0D10
+#define S5P_CHECK_SLEEP 0x00000BAD
 
 /* Ext-GIC nIRQ/nFIQ is the only wakeup source in AFTR */
 static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(long mask)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h
index 4f6a256..6c1d2db 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h
@@ -119,8 +119,6 @@
 #define S5P_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN			0x3
 #define S5P_INT_LOCAL_PWR_EN			0x7
 
-#define S5P_CHECK_SLEEP				0x00000BAD
-
 /* Only for EXYNOS4210 */
 #define S5P_CMU_CLKSTOP_LCD1_LOWPWR	S5P_PMUREG(0x1154)
 #define S5P_CMU_RESET_LCD1_LOWPWR	S5P_PMUREG(0x1174)
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 17/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move S5P_CHECK_SLEEP into pm.c

[Daniel Lezcano]

This macro is only used there.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c       |    3 ++-
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h |    2 --
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index 6d9ef69..b380d48 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -108,7 +108,8 @@ static int exynos_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *data, unsigned int state)
 			S5P_INFORM6 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
 			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
 
-#define S5P_CHECK_AFTR 0xFCBA0D10
+#define S5P_CHECK_AFTR  0xFCBA0D10
+#define S5P_CHECK_SLEEP 0x00000BAD
 
 /* Ext-GIC nIRQ/nFIQ is the only wakeup source in AFTR */
 static void exynos_set_wakeupmask(long mask)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h
index 4f6a256..6c1d2db 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h
@@ -119,8 +119,6 @@
 #define S5P_CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN			0x3
 #define S5P_INT_LOCAL_PWR_EN			0x7
 
-#define S5P_CHECK_SLEEP				0x00000BAD
-
 /* Only for EXYNOS4210 */
 #define S5P_CMU_CLKSTOP_LCD1_LOWPWR	S5P_PMUREG(0x1154)
 #define S5P_CMU_RESET_LCD1_LOWPWR	S5P_PMUREG(0x1174)
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Daniel Lezcano]

No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |    4 +++-
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c  |    5 +++--
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 02609ac..1d1222e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
 
 #include <mach/map.h>
 
-#include "common.h"
+static void (*exynos_enter_aftr)(void);
 
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 {
@@ -86,6 +86,8 @@ static int exynos_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	int ret;
 
+	exynos_enter_aftr = (void *)(pdev->dev.platform_data);
+
 	ret = cpuidle_register(&exynos_idle_driver, NULL);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register cpuidle driver\n");
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
@@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
 }
 
 static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
-	.name		= "exynos_cpuidle",
-	.id		= -1,
+	.name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
+	.dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr,
+	.id                = -1,
 };
 
 void __init exynos_cpuidle_init(void)
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Daniel Lezcano]

No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |    4 +++-
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c  |    5 +++--
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 02609ac..1d1222e 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
 
 #include <mach/map.h>
 
-#include "common.h"
+static void (*exynos_enter_aftr)(void);
 
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
 {
@@ -86,6 +86,8 @@ static int exynos_cpuidle_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 {
 	int ret;
 
+	exynos_enter_aftr = (void *)(pdev->dev.platform_data);
+
 	ret = cpuidle_register(&exynos_idle_driver, NULL);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register cpuidle driver\n");
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
@@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
 }
 
 static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
-	.name		= "exynos_cpuidle",
-	.id		= -1,
+	.name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
+	.dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr,
+	.id                = -1,
 };
 
 void __init exynos_cpuidle_init(void)
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 19/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Cleanup all unneeded headers from cpuidle.c

[Daniel Lezcano]

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   10 ----------
 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 1d1222e..1d09ebd 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -8,25 +8,15 @@
  * published by the Free Software Foundation.
 */
 
-#include <linux/kernel.h>
-#include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/cpuidle.h>
 #include <linux/cpu_pm.h>
-#include <linux/io.h>
 #include <linux/export.h>
-#include <linux/time.h>
 #include <linux/platform_device.h>
 
 #include <asm/proc-fns.h>
 #include <asm/suspend.h>
-#include <asm/unified.h>
 #include <asm/cpuidle.h>
 
-#include <plat/cpu.h>
-#include <plat/pm.h>
-
-#include <mach/map.h>
-
 static void (*exynos_enter_aftr)(void);
 
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 19/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Cleanup all unneeded headers from cpuidle.c

[Daniel Lezcano]

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   10 ----------
 1 file changed, 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
index 1d1222e..1d09ebd 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
@@ -8,25 +8,15 @@
  * published by the Free Software Foundation.
 */
 
-#include <linux/kernel.h>
-#include <linux/init.h>
 #include <linux/cpuidle.h>
 #include <linux/cpu_pm.h>
-#include <linux/io.h>
 #include <linux/export.h>
-#include <linux/time.h>
 #include <linux/platform_device.h>
 
 #include <asm/proc-fns.h>
 #include <asm/suspend.h>
-#include <asm/unified.h>
 #include <asm/cpuidle.h>
 
-#include <plat/cpu.h>
-#include <plat/pm.h>
-
-#include <mach/map.h>
-
 static void (*exynos_enter_aftr)(void);
 
 static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 20/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle directory

[Daniel Lezcano]

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile                      |    1 -
 drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm                        |    6 ++++++
 drivers/cpuidle/Makefile                           |    1 +
 .../cpuidle.c => drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c  |    0
 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 rename arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c => drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c (100%)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile
index a656dbe..21bd364 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile
@@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS)	+= exynos.o
 
 obj-$(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP)		+= pm.o sleep.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS) += pm_domains.o
-obj-$(CONFIG_CPU_IDLE)		+= cpuidle.o
 
 obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS)	+= pmu.o
 
diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm
index d988948..364c984 100644
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm
@@ -44,3 +44,9 @@ config ARM_AT91_CPUIDLE
 	depends on ARCH_AT91
 	help
 	  Select this to enable cpuidle for AT91 processors
+
+config ARM_EXYNOS_CPUIDLE
+	bool "Cpu Idle Driver for the Exynos processors"
+	depends on ARCH_EXYNOS
+	help
+	  Select this to enable cpuidle for Exynos processors
diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/Makefile b/drivers/cpuidle/Makefile
index f71ae1b..0d1540a 100644
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/Makefile
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_KIRKWOOD_CPUIDLE)	+= cpuidle-kirkwood.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_ZYNQ_CPUIDLE)		+= cpuidle-zynq.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_U8500_CPUIDLE)         += cpuidle-ux500.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_AT91_CPUIDLE)          += cpuidle-at91.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_EXYNOS_CPUIDLE)        += cpuidle-exynos.o
 
 ###############################################################################
 # POWERPC drivers
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c
similarity index 100%
rename from arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
rename to drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH V5 20/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle directory

[Daniel Lezcano]

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile                      |    1 -
 drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm                        |    6 ++++++
 drivers/cpuidle/Makefile                           |    1 +
 .../cpuidle.c => drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c  |    0
 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 rename arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c => drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c (100%)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile
index a656dbe..21bd364 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile
@@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS)	+= exynos.o
 
 obj-$(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP)		+= pm.o sleep.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS) += pm_domains.o
-obj-$(CONFIG_CPU_IDLE)		+= cpuidle.o
 
 obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS)	+= pmu.o
 
diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm b/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm
index d988948..364c984 100644
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm
@@ -44,3 +44,9 @@ config ARM_AT91_CPUIDLE
 	depends on ARCH_AT91
 	help
 	  Select this to enable cpuidle for AT91 processors
+
+config ARM_EXYNOS_CPUIDLE
+	bool "Cpu Idle Driver for the Exynos processors"
+	depends on ARCH_EXYNOS
+	help
+	  Select this to enable cpuidle for Exynos processors
diff --git a/drivers/cpuidle/Makefile b/drivers/cpuidle/Makefile
index f71ae1b..0d1540a 100644
--- a/drivers/cpuidle/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/cpuidle/Makefile
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_KIRKWOOD_CPUIDLE)	+= cpuidle-kirkwood.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_ZYNQ_CPUIDLE)		+= cpuidle-zynq.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_U8500_CPUIDLE)         += cpuidle-ux500.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_AT91_CPUIDLE)          += cpuidle-at91.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_EXYNOS_CPUIDLE)        += cpuidle-exynos.o
 
 ###############################################################################
 # POWERPC drivers
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c
similarity index 100%
rename from arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
rename to drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Daniel Lezcano]

Hi Kukjin,

I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this 
patchset for next ?

Regards

   -- Daniel



On 04/11/2014 12:39 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Changelog:
>
> V5:
> 	* Removed patch : "Move clock setup to pm.c"
> 	* Added patch   : "Move arm core power down clock to exynos5250 common code"
> V4:
> 	* Took into account Tomasz's comments
> 		* Fixed missing call in for central suspend
> 		* Passed parameter to the wakeup mask function
> 		* Moved wakeup mask, boot vector and aftr state into a single
> 		function
> 		* Used this function as callback for platform data
> 		* Moved S5P_CHECK_AFTR/S5P_CHECK_SLEEP into pm.c
> 		* Set boot vector only one time
> 	* Splitted some patches to make them more readable
> V3:
> 	* Added patch   : "ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Disable cpuidle for 5440"
> 	* Removed patch : "ARM: exynos: config: Enable cpuidle"
> 	* Removed default ARM_EXYNOS4210_CPUIDLE=y
> 	* Added comment about bug fix side effect 'for_each_possible_cpu'
> V2:
> 	* Added comment in changelog for calls order (5/17)
> 	* Call the powerdown only for cpu0 in the pm notifier
> 	* Set the pm notifier for all boards
>
> V1: initial post
>
> This patchset relies on the cpm_pm notifier to initiate the powerdown sequence
> operations from pm.c instead cpuidle.c. Thus the cpuidle driver is no longer
> dependent from arch specific code as everything is called from the pm.c file.
>
> The patchset applies on top of linux-samsung/for-next.
>
> Tested on exynos4: 4210
> Tested on exynos5: 5250 (without AFTR)
>
> Amit Daniel Kachhap (1):
>    ARM: EXYNOS: Move arm core power down clock to exynos5250 common
>      clock
>
> Daniel Lezcano (19):
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Prevent forward declaration
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Use cpuidle_register
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Change function name prefix
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate register access inside a function
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move some code inside the idle_finisher
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Fix S5P_WAKEUP_STAT call
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Use the cpu_pm notifier
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move scu_enable in the cpu_pm notifier
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Remove ifdef for scu_enable
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass wakeup mask parameter to function
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate boot vector code into a function
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Disable cpuidle for 5440
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate the AFTR code into a function
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the AFTR state function into pm.c
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the power sequence call in the cpu_pm
>      notifier
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move S5P_CHECK_SLEEP into pm.c
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Cleanup all unneeded headers from cpuidle.c
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle directory
>
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile        |    1 -
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h        |    1 +
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c       |  255 ----------------------------------
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c        |    8 +-
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c            |  152 ++++++++++++++++----
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h      |    2 -
>   drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c |   42 ++++++
>   drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm          |    6 +
>   drivers/cpuidle/Makefile             |    1 +
>   drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c     |   98 +++++++++++++
>   10 files changed, 277 insertions(+), 289 deletions(-)
>   delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
>   create mode 100644 drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c
>


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Daniel Lezcano]

Hi Kukjin,

I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this 
patchset for next ?

Regards

   -- Daniel



On 04/11/2014 12:39 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> Changelog:
>
> V5:
> 	* Removed patch : "Move clock setup to pm.c"
> 	* Added patch   : "Move arm core power down clock to exynos5250 common code"
> V4:
> 	* Took into account Tomasz's comments
> 		* Fixed missing call in for central suspend
> 		* Passed parameter to the wakeup mask function
> 		* Moved wakeup mask, boot vector and aftr state into a single
> 		function
> 		* Used this function as callback for platform data
> 		* Moved S5P_CHECK_AFTR/S5P_CHECK_SLEEP into pm.c
> 		* Set boot vector only one time
> 	* Splitted some patches to make them more readable
> V3:
> 	* Added patch   : "ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Disable cpuidle for 5440"
> 	* Removed patch : "ARM: exynos: config: Enable cpuidle"
> 	* Removed default ARM_EXYNOS4210_CPUIDLE=y
> 	* Added comment about bug fix side effect 'for_each_possible_cpu'
> V2:
> 	* Added comment in changelog for calls order (5/17)
> 	* Call the powerdown only for cpu0 in the pm notifier
> 	* Set the pm notifier for all boards
>
> V1: initial post
>
> This patchset relies on the cpm_pm notifier to initiate the powerdown sequence
> operations from pm.c instead cpuidle.c. Thus the cpuidle driver is no longer
> dependent from arch specific code as everything is called from the pm.c file.
>
> The patchset applies on top of linux-samsung/for-next.
>
> Tested on exynos4: 4210
> Tested on exynos5: 5250 (without AFTR)
>
> Amit Daniel Kachhap (1):
>    ARM: EXYNOS: Move arm core power down clock to exynos5250 common
>      clock
>
> Daniel Lezcano (19):
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Prevent forward declaration
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Use cpuidle_register
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Change function name prefix
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate register access inside a function
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move some code inside the idle_finisher
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Fix S5P_WAKEUP_STAT call
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Use the cpu_pm notifier
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move scu_enable in the cpu_pm notifier
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Remove ifdef for scu_enable
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass wakeup mask parameter to function
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate boot vector code into a function
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Disable cpuidle for 5440
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Encapsulate the AFTR code into a function
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the AFTR state function into pm.c
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the power sequence call in the cpu_pm
>      notifier
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move S5P_CHECK_SLEEP into pm.c
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Cleanup all unneeded headers from cpuidle.c
>    ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle directory
>
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile        |    1 -
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h        |    1 +
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c       |  255 ----------------------------------
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c        |    8 +-
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c            |  152 ++++++++++++++++----
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h      |    2 -
>   drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c |   42 ++++++
>   drivers/cpuidle/Kconfig.arm          |    6 +
>   drivers/cpuidle/Makefile             |    1 +
>   drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c     |   98 +++++++++++++
>   10 files changed, 277 insertions(+), 289 deletions(-)
>   delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
>   create mode 100644 drivers/cpuidle/cpuidle-exynos.c
>


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Tomasz Figa]

On 14.04.2014 11:01, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> Hi Kukjin,
>
> I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this
> patchset for next ?

+1.

Also when applying you might add

Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>

to any patches that don't have it yet.

Best regards,
Tomasz

[PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Tomasz Figa]

On 14.04.2014 11:01, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
> Hi Kukjin,
>
> I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this
> patchset for next ?

+1.

Also when applying you might add

Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>

to any patches that don't have it yet.

Best regards,
Tomasz

RE: [PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Kukjin Kim]

Tomasz Figa wrote:
> 
> On 14.04.2014 11:01, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kukjin,
> >
> > I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this
> > patchset for next ?
> 
Sure ;-)

> +1.
> 
> Also when applying you might add
> 
> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> 
> to any patches that don't have it yet.
> 
Tomasz, thanks for your review.

I will take this series, "moving exynos-cpuidle into drivers/cpuidle" into samsung tree if Rafael is OK on that.

Thanks,
Kukjin

[PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Kukjin Kim]

Tomasz Figa wrote:
> 
> On 14.04.2014 11:01, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >
> > Hi Kukjin,
> >
> > I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this
> > patchset for next ?
> 
Sure ;-)

> +1.
> 
> Also when applying you might add
> 
> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> 
> to any patches that don't have it yet.
> 
Tomasz, thanks for your review.

I will take this series, "moving exynos-cpuidle into drivers/cpuidle" into samsung tree if Rafael is OK on that.

Thanks,
Kukjin

Re: [PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>

This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds.

> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
>  }
>  
>  static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
> -       .name           = "exynos_cpuidle",
> -       .id             = -1,
> +       .name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
> +       .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr,
> +       .id                = -1,
>  };
>  

This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly?

* The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just
  reference it from generic code, or you get a link error.
* 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade,
  stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is
  platform_device_register_simple().
* There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all
  come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be
  shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions.

Daniel, you should really know better than this. Why are you still adding
code to drivers/cpuidle that uses legacy platform devices rather than DT
probing?

	Arnd

[PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>

This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds.

> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
>  }
>  
>  static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
> -       .name           = "exynos_cpuidle",
> -       .id             = -1,
> +       .name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
> +       .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr,
> +       .id                = -1,
>  };
>  

This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly?

* The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just
  reference it from generic code, or you get a link error.
* 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade,
  stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is
  platform_device_register_simple().
* There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all
  come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be
  shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions.

Daniel, you should really know better than this. Why are you still adding
code to drivers/cpuidle that uses legacy platform devices rather than DT
probing?

	Arnd

Re: [PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Tomasz Figa]

Hi Arnd,

On 09.05.2014 12:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
>> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
> 
> This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds.
> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
>>  }
>>  
>>  static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
>> -       .name           = "exynos_cpuidle",
>> -       .id             = -1,
>> +       .name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
>> +       .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr,
>> +       .id                = -1,
>>  };
>>  
> 
> This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly?
> 
> * The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just
>   reference it from generic code, or you get a link error.

+1

> * 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade,
>   stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is
>   platform_device_register_simple().

+0.5

The missing 0.5 is because you can't pass platform data using
platform_device_register_simple(). There is
platform_device_register_resndata(), though.

> * There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all
>   come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be
>   shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions.

-1

Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is any
way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
infrastructure for this.

Best regards,
Tomasz

[PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Tomasz Figa]

Hi Arnd,

On 09.05.2014 12:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
>> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
> 
> This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds.
> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
>>  }
>>  
>>  static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
>> -       .name           = "exynos_cpuidle",
>> -       .id             = -1,
>> +       .name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
>> +       .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr,
>> +       .id                = -1,
>>  };
>>  
> 
> This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly?
> 
> * The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just
>   reference it from generic code, or you get a link error.

+1

> * 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade,
>   stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is
>   platform_device_register_simple().

+0.5

The missing 0.5 is because you can't pass platform data using
platform_device_register_simple(). There is
platform_device_register_resndata(), though.

> * There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all
>   come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be
>   shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions.

-1

Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is any
way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
infrastructure for this.

Best regards,
Tomasz

Re: [PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Kukjin Kim]

On 05/09/14 19:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
>> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano<daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar<viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
>
> This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds.
>
Hi Arnd,

Hmm...I just reverted this series in for-next of samsung tree and will 
hold on until solving the randconfig build breakage. I need to look at 
this again and think about your suggestion...

Thanks,
Kukjin

[PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Kukjin Kim]

On 05/09/14 19:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
>> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano<daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar<viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
>
> This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds.
>
Hi Arnd,

Hmm...I just reverted this series in for-next of samsung tree and will 
hold on until solving the randconfig build breakage. I need to look at 
this again and think about your suggestion...

Thanks,
Kukjin

Re: [PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

Hi,

On Friday, May 09, 2014 02:02:14 PM Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> On 09.05.2014 12:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
> >> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> >> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> >> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
> > 
> > This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds.

Could you please give some more details about these issues?

If this is a build breakage for CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=n && CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=y
configuration then this is not a new problem introduced by the current
patchset (please see below).

> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> >> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> >> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
> >> -       .name           = "exynos_cpuidle",
> >> -       .id             = -1,
> >> +       .name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
> >> +       .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr,
> >> +       .id                = -1,
> >>  };
> >>  
> > 
> > This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly?
> > 
> > * The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just
> >   reference it from generic code, or you get a link error.
> 
> +1

Even without Daniel's patchset we are getting a link error for
CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=n && CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=y configuration.

In arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile we have:

...
obj-$(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP)		+= pm.o sleep.o
...
obj-$(CONFIG_CPU_IDLE)		+= cpuidle.o
...

and since cpuidle.c is referencing exynos_cpu_resume() from sleep.S
the build results in:

arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c:63:2: warning: #warning "TODO: return_address should use unwind tables" [-Wcpp]
arch/arm/mach-exynos/built-in.o: In function `exynos4_enter_core0_aftr':
/home/bzolnier/linux-sprc/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c:141: undefined reference to `cpu_suspend'
arch/arm/mach-exynos/built-in.o: In function `exynos4_enter_lowpower':
/home/bzolnier/linux-sprc/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c:176: undefined reference to `exynos_cpu_resume'
make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1

linkage errors.

[ The other error for the current code is for cpu_suspend() which is
  also (indirectly) dependent on CONFIG_PM_SLEEP. ]

> > * 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade,
> >   stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is
> >   platform_device_register_simple().
> 
> +0.5
> 
> The missing 0.5 is because you can't pass platform data using
> platform_device_register_simple(). There is
> platform_device_register_resndata(), though.

Agreed but this can be fixed trivially (even in in the incremental
patch).

> > * There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all
> >   come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be
> >   shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions.
> 
> -1
> 
> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is any
> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
> infrastructure for this.

Moreover this code is not going to be shared between arm32 and arm64 in
the near future (if ever) and doing things by using platform device
has such benefit that the current code can be changed without a problem
when the need arise.  With DT there is no such flexibility and it also
takes some time to design DT bindings properly.

The build problems should be fixed but if indeed they are not a new ones
then the patchset should be brought back (Kukjin has dropped it entirely
for now).  This is important work which serves as a base for more cpuidle
improvements from both Daniel and me therefore it would be great to have
it merged in v3.16 and not delay it unnecessarily.

Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics

[PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

Hi,

On Friday, May 09, 2014 02:02:14 PM Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> On 09.05.2014 12:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
> >> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> >> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> >> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
> > 
> > This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds.

Could you please give some more details about these issues?

If this is a build breakage for CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=n && CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=y
configuration then this is not a new problem introduced by the current
patchset (please see below).

> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> >> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
> >> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
> >>  }
> >>  
> >>  static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
> >> -       .name           = "exynos_cpuidle",
> >> -       .id             = -1,
> >> +       .name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
> >> +       .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr,
> >> +       .id                = -1,
> >>  };
> >>  
> > 
> > This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly?
> > 
> > * The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just
> >   reference it from generic code, or you get a link error.
> 
> +1

Even without Daniel's patchset we are getting a link error for
CONFIG_PM_SLEEP=n && CONFIG_CPU_IDLE=y configuration.

In arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile we have:

...
obj-$(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP)		+= pm.o sleep.o
...
obj-$(CONFIG_CPU_IDLE)		+= cpuidle.o
...

and since cpuidle.c is referencing exynos_cpu_resume() from sleep.S
the build results in:

arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c:63:2: warning: #warning "TODO: return_address should use unwind tables" [-Wcpp]
arch/arm/mach-exynos/built-in.o: In function `exynos4_enter_core0_aftr':
/home/bzolnier/linux-sprc/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c:141: undefined reference to `cpu_suspend'
arch/arm/mach-exynos/built-in.o: In function `exynos4_enter_lowpower':
/home/bzolnier/linux-sprc/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c:176: undefined reference to `exynos_cpu_resume'
make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1

linkage errors.

[ The other error for the current code is for cpu_suspend() which is
  also (indirectly) dependent on CONFIG_PM_SLEEP. ]

> > * 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade,
> >   stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is
> >   platform_device_register_simple().
> 
> +0.5
> 
> The missing 0.5 is because you can't pass platform data using
> platform_device_register_simple(). There is
> platform_device_register_resndata(), though.

Agreed but this can be fixed trivially (even in in the incremental
patch).

> > * There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all
> >   come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be
> >   shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions.
> 
> -1
> 
> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is any
> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
> infrastructure for this.

Moreover this code is not going to be shared between arm32 and arm64 in
the near future (if ever) and doing things by using platform device
has such benefit that the current code can be changed without a problem
when the need arise.  With DT there is no such flexibility and it also
takes some time to design DT bindings properly.

The build problems should be fixed but if indeed they are not a new ones
then the patchset should be brought back (Kukjin has dropped it entirely
for now).  This is important work which serves as a base for more cpuidle
improvements from both Daniel and me therefore it would be great to have
it merged in v3.16 and not delay it unnecessarily.

Best regards,
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
Samsung Electronics

Re: [PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/09/2014 02:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On 09.05.2014 12:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
>>> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
>>
>> This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds.
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
>>>   }
>>>
>>>   static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
>>> -       .name           = "exynos_cpuidle",
>>> -       .id             = -1,
>>> +       .name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
>>> +       .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr,
>>> +       .id                = -1,
>>>   };
>>>
>>
>> This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly?
>>
>> * The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just
>>    reference it from generic code, or you get a link error.
>
> +1

That is true but still we have a link error without this patch. We 
shouldn't register and declare this structure if CONFIG_PM / 
CONFIG_CPU_IDLE are not set.

>> * 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade,
>>    stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is
>>    platform_device_register_simple().
>
> +0.5
>
> The missing 0.5 is because you can't pass platform data using
> platform_device_register_simple(). There is
> platform_device_register_resndata(), though.
>
>> * There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all
>>    come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be
>>    shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions.
>
> -1
>
> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is any
> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
> infrastructure for this.

There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].

The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code 
across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.

By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and 
store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review 
and the maintenance.

I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would 
prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That 
will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is 
what does this patchset at the end).

As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error 
could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to 
re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej.

Thanks
   -- Daniel


[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg328747.html


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/09/2014 02:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>
> On 09.05.2014 12:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
>>> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
>>
>> This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds.
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
>>>   }
>>>
>>>   static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
>>> -       .name           = "exynos_cpuidle",
>>> -       .id             = -1,
>>> +       .name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
>>> +       .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr,
>>> +       .id                = -1,
>>>   };
>>>
>>
>> This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly?
>>
>> * The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just
>>    reference it from generic code, or you get a link error.
>
> +1

That is true but still we have a link error without this patch. We 
shouldn't register and declare this structure if CONFIG_PM / 
CONFIG_CPU_IDLE are not set.

>> * 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade,
>>    stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is
>>    platform_device_register_simple().
>
> +0.5
>
> The missing 0.5 is because you can't pass platform data using
> platform_device_register_simple(). There is
> platform_device_register_resndata(), though.
>
>> * There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all
>>    come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be
>>    shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions.
>
> -1
>
> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is any
> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
> infrastructure for this.

There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].

The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code 
across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.

By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and 
store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review 
and the maintenance.

I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would 
prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That 
will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is 
what does this patchset at the end).

As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error 
could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to 
re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej.

Thanks
   -- Daniel


[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg328747.html


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Tomasz Figa]

Arnd, Kukjin, Daniel,

On 12.05.2014 17:18, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/09/2014 02:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> Hi Arnd,
>>
>> On 09.05.2014 12:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
>>>> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
>>>
>>> This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds.
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>>> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>>> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
>>>>   }
>>>>
>>>>   static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
>>>> -       .name           = "exynos_cpuidle",
>>>> -       .id             = -1,
>>>> +       .name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
>>>> +       .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr,
>>>> +       .id                = -1,
>>>>   };
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly?
>>>
>>> * The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just
>>>    reference it from generic code, or you get a link error.
>>
>> +1
> 
> That is true but still we have a link error without this patch. We 
> shouldn't register and declare this structure if CONFIG_PM / 
> CONFIG_CPU_IDLE are not set.
> 
>>> * 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade,
>>>    stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is
>>>    platform_device_register_simple().
>>
>> +0.5
>>
>> The missing 0.5 is because you can't pass platform data using
>> platform_device_register_simple(). There is
>> platform_device_register_resndata(), though.
>>
>>> * There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all
>>>    come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be
>>>    shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions.
>>
>> -1
>>
>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is any
>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
>> infrastructure for this.
> 
> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].
> 
> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code 
> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.
> 
> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and 
> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review 
> and the maintenance.
> 
> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would 
> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That 
> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is 
> what does this patchset at the end).
> 
> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error 
> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to 
> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej.

In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but I'd
consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice
intermediate step towards further clean-up.

So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the
development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward.

Best regards,
Tomasz

[PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Tomasz Figa]

Arnd, Kukjin, Daniel,

On 12.05.2014 17:18, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/09/2014 02:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> Hi Arnd,
>>
>> On 09.05.2014 12:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
>>>> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
>>>
>>> This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds.
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>>> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>>> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
>>>>   }
>>>>
>>>>   static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
>>>> -       .name           = "exynos_cpuidle",
>>>> -       .id             = -1,
>>>> +       .name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
>>>> +       .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr,
>>>> +       .id                = -1,
>>>>   };
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly?
>>>
>>> * The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just
>>>    reference it from generic code, or you get a link error.
>>
>> +1
> 
> That is true but still we have a link error without this patch. We 
> shouldn't register and declare this structure if CONFIG_PM / 
> CONFIG_CPU_IDLE are not set.
> 
>>> * 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade,
>>>    stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is
>>>    platform_device_register_simple().
>>
>> +0.5
>>
>> The missing 0.5 is because you can't pass platform data using
>> platform_device_register_simple(). There is
>> platform_device_register_resndata(), though.
>>
>>> * There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all
>>>    come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be
>>>    shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions.
>>
>> -1
>>
>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is any
>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
>> infrastructure for this.
> 
> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].
> 
> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code 
> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.
> 
> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and 
> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review 
> and the maintenance.
> 
> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would 
> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That 
> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is 
> what does this patchset at the end).
> 
> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error 
> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to 
> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej.

In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but I'd
consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice
intermediate step towards further clean-up.

So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the
development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward.

Best regards,
Tomasz

Re: [PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Kukjin Kim]

On 05/15/14 23:07, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Arnd, Kukjin, Daniel,
>
> On 12.05.2014 17:18, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 05/09/2014 02:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> Hi Arnd,
>>>
>>> On 09.05.2014 12:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
>>>>> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano<daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar<viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
>>>>
>>>> This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds.
>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>>>> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>>>> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
>>>>>    }
>>>>>
>>>>>    static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
>>>>> -       .name           = "exynos_cpuidle",
>>>>> -       .id             = -1,
>>>>> +       .name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
>>>>> +       .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr,
>>>>> +       .id                = -1,
>>>>>    };
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly?
>>>>
>>>> * The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just
>>>>     reference it from generic code, or you get a link error.
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> That is true but still we have a link error without this patch. We
>> shouldn't register and declare this structure if CONFIG_PM /
>> CONFIG_CPU_IDLE are not set.
>>
>>>> * 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade,
>>>>     stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is
>>>>     platform_device_register_simple().
>>>
>>> +0.5
>>>
>>> The missing 0.5 is because you can't pass platform data using
>>> platform_device_register_simple(). There is
>>> platform_device_register_resndata(), though.
>>>
>>>> * There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all
>>>>     come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be
>>>>     shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions.
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is any
>>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
>>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
>>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
>>> infrastructure for this.
>>
>> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].
>>
>> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code
>> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.
>>
>> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and
>> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review
>> and the maintenance.
>>
>> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would
>> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That
>> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is
>> what does this patchset at the end).
>>
>> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error
>> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to
>> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej.
>
> In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but I'd
> consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice
> intermediate step towards further clean-up.
>
> So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the
> development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward.
>
I'm fine.

Arnd, how about you?

- Kukjin

[PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Kukjin Kim]

On 05/15/14 23:07, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Arnd, Kukjin, Daniel,
>
> On 12.05.2014 17:18, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 05/09/2014 02:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> Hi Arnd,
>>>
>>> On 09.05.2014 12:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> On Friday 11 April 2014, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>> No more dependency on the arch code. The platform_data field is used to set the
>>>>> PM callback as the other cpuidle drivers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano<daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar<viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz<b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
>>>>
>>>> This has just shown up in linux-next and broken randconfig builds.
>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>>>> index fe8dac8..d22f0e4 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>>>> @@ -221,8 +221,9 @@ void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
>>>>>    }
>>>>>
>>>>>    static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = {
>>>>> -       .name           = "exynos_cpuidle",
>>>>> -       .id             = -1,
>>>>> +       .name              = "exynos_cpuidle",
>>>>> +       .dev.platform_data = exynos_enter_aftr,
>>>>> +       .id                = -1,
>>>>>    };
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is wrong on many levels, can we please do this properly?
>>>>
>>>> * The exynos_enter_aftr function is compiled conditionally, so you can't just
>>>>     reference it from generic code, or you get a link error.
>>>
>>> +1
>>
>> That is true but still we have a link error without this patch. We
>> shouldn't register and declare this structure if CONFIG_PM /
>> CONFIG_CPU_IDLE are not set.
>>
>>>> * 'static struct platform_device ...' has been deprecated for at least a decade,
>>>>     stop doing that. For any platform devices that get registered, there is
>>>>     platform_device_register_simple().
>>>
>>> +0.5
>>>
>>> The missing 0.5 is because you can't pass platform data using
>>> platform_device_register_simple(). There is
>>> platform_device_register_resndata(), though.
>>>
>>>> * There shouldn't need to be a platform_device to start with, this should all
>>>>     come from DT. We can't do this on arm64 anyway, so any code that may be
>>>>     shared between arm32 and arm64 should have proper abstractions.
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is any
>>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
>>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
>>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
>>> infrastructure for this.
>>
>> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].
>>
>> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code
>> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.
>>
>> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and
>> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review
>> and the maintenance.
>>
>> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would
>> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That
>> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is
>> what does this patchset at the end).
>>
>> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error
>> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to
>> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej.
>
> In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but I'd
> consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice
> intermediate step towards further clean-up.
>
> So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the
> development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward.
>
I'm fine.

Arnd, how about you?

- Kukjin

Re: [PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/15/2014 10:40 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is
>>>> any
>>>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
>>>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
>>>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
>>>> infrastructure for this.
>>>
>>> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].
>>>
>>> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code
>>> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.
>>>
>>> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and
>>> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review
>>> and the maintenance.
>>>
>>> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would
>>> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That
>>> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is
>>> what does this patchset at the end).
>>>
>>> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error
>>> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to
>>> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej.
>>
>> In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but I'd
>> consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice
>> intermediate step towards further clean-up.
>>
>> So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the
>> development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward.
>>
> I'm fine.
>
> Arnd, how about you?
>
> - Kukjin

Arnd ?


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/15/2014 10:40 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:

[ ... ]

>>>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is
>>>> any
>>>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
>>>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
>>>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
>>>> infrastructure for this.
>>>
>>> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].
>>>
>>> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code
>>> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.
>>>
>>> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and
>>> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review
>>> and the maintenance.
>>>
>>> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would
>>> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That
>>> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is
>>> what does this patchset at the end).
>>>
>>> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error
>>> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to
>>> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej.
>>
>> In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but I'd
>> consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice
>> intermediate step towards further clean-up.
>>
>> So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the
>> development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward.
>>
> I'm fine.
>
> Arnd, how about you?
>
> - Kukjin

Arnd ?


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 21 May 2014 09:15:34 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 10:40 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> >>>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is
> >>>> any
> >>>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
> >>>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
> >>>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
> >>>> infrastructure for this.
> >>>
> >>> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].
> >>>
> >>> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code
> >>> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.
> >>>
> >>> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and
> >>> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review
> >>> and the maintenance.

Yes, that would be great. I only looked briefly at the series now, doesn't
that require the use of psci? That's not a bad idea of course, but it
doesn't solve the problem I raised here.

> >>> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would
> >>> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That
> >>> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is
> >>> what does this patchset at the end).
> >>>
> >>> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error
> >>> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to
> >>> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej.
> >>
> >> In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but I'd
> >> consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice
> >> intermediate step towards further clean-up.
> >>
> >> So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the
> >> development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward.
> >>
> > I'm fine.
> >
> > Arnd, how about you?
> >
> > - Kukjin
> 
> Arnd ?

Sorry for the delay. Yes, let's do it this way once more, but please
come up with something better for the future that doesn't tie the
cpuidle method to the root compatible string as this does.

	Arnd

[PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 21 May 2014 09:15:34 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/15/2014 10:40 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> 
> [ ... ]
> 
> >>>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is
> >>>> any
> >>>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
> >>>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
> >>>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
> >>>> infrastructure for this.
> >>>
> >>> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].
> >>>
> >>> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code
> >>> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.
> >>>
> >>> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and
> >>> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review
> >>> and the maintenance.

Yes, that would be great. I only looked briefly at the series now, doesn't
that require the use of psci? That's not a bad idea of course, but it
doesn't solve the problem I raised here.

> >>> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would
> >>> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That
> >>> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is
> >>> what does this patchset at the end).
> >>>
> >>> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error
> >>> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to
> >>> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej.
> >>
> >> In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but I'd
> >> consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice
> >> intermediate step towards further clean-up.
> >>
> >> So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the
> >> development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward.
> >>
> > I'm fine.
> >
> > Arnd, how about you?
> >
> > - Kukjin
> 
> Arnd ?

Sorry for the delay. Yes, let's do it this way once more, but please
come up with something better for the future that doesn't tie the
cpuidle method to the root compatible string as this does.

	Arnd

Re: [PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/21/2014 10:10 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 May 2014 09:15:34 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 05/15/2014 10:40 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>>>>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
>>>>>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
>>>>>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
>>>>>> infrastructure for this.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code
>>>>> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.
>>>>>
>>>>> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and
>>>>> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review
>>>>> and the maintenance.
>
> Yes, that would be great. I only looked briefly at the series now, doesn't
> that require the use of psci?

No, because PSCI is for some specific platform (eg. calxeda), all the 
other drivers are legacy and manually handling the PM via some low level 
callbacks. This is why all drivers were implemented all over the place 
making so difficult to maintain them. Little by little, we split the PM 
callbacks from the idle algorithm so reducing the platform dependency 
with the generic code.

The PSCI implements such PM callbacks in the firmware directly and are 
accessed through an API. PSCI is, let's say some kindof nextgen cpuidle. 
It is similar than mwait on Intel. But if a new platform does not have 
such firmware, then the cpuidle driver will have the legacy format.

> That's not a bad idea of course, but it
> doesn't solve the problem I raised here.
>
>>>>> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would
>>>>> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That
>>>>> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is
>>>>> what does this patchset at the end).
>>>>>
>>>>> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error
>>>>> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to
>>>>> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej.
>>>>
>>>> In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but I'd
>>>> consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice
>>>> intermediate step towards further clean-up.
>>>>
>>>> So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the
>>>> development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward.
>>>>
>>> I'm fine.
>>>
>>> Arnd, how about you?
>>>
>>> - Kukjin
>>
>> Arnd ?
>
> Sorry for the delay.

No problem.

> Yes, let's do it this way once more, but please
> come up with something better for the future that doesn't tie the
> cpuidle method to the root compatible string as this does.

ok.

Thanks

   -- Daniel

-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/21/2014 10:10 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 May 2014 09:15:34 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 05/15/2014 10:40 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>>>>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is
>>>>>> any
>>>>>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
>>>>>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
>>>>>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
>>>>>> infrastructure for this.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code
>>>>> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.
>>>>>
>>>>> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and
>>>>> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review
>>>>> and the maintenance.
>
> Yes, that would be great. I only looked briefly at the series now, doesn't
> that require the use of psci?

No, because PSCI is for some specific platform (eg. calxeda), all the 
other drivers are legacy and manually handling the PM via some low level 
callbacks. This is why all drivers were implemented all over the place 
making so difficult to maintain them. Little by little, we split the PM 
callbacks from the idle algorithm so reducing the platform dependency 
with the generic code.

The PSCI implements such PM callbacks in the firmware directly and are 
accessed through an API. PSCI is, let's say some kindof nextgen cpuidle. 
It is similar than mwait on Intel. But if a new platform does not have 
such firmware, then the cpuidle driver will have the legacy format.

> That's not a bad idea of course, but it
> doesn't solve the problem I raised here.
>
>>>>> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would
>>>>> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That
>>>>> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is
>>>>> what does this patchset at the end).
>>>>>
>>>>> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error
>>>>> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to
>>>>> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej.
>>>>
>>>> In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but I'd
>>>> consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice
>>>> intermediate step towards further clean-up.
>>>>
>>>> So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the
>>>> development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward.
>>>>
>>> I'm fine.
>>>
>>> Arnd, how about you?
>>>
>>> - Kukjin
>>
>> Arnd ?
>
> Sorry for the delay.

No problem.

> Yes, let's do it this way once more, but please
> come up with something better for the future that doesn't tie the
> cpuidle method to the root compatible string as this does.

ok.

Thanks

   -- Daniel

-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

RE: [PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Kukjin Kim]

Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> 
> On Wednesday 21 May 2014 09:15:34 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > On 05/15/2014 10:40 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > >>>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there
> is
> > >>>> any
> > >>>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is
> matching
> > >>>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
> > >>>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any
> available
> > >>>> infrastructure for this.
> > >>>
> > >>> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].
> > >>>
> > >>> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the
> code
> > >>> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.
> > >>>
> > >>> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle
> and
> > >>> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the
> review
> > >>> and the maintenance.
> 
> Yes, that would be great. I only looked briefly at the series now, doesn't
> that require the use of psci? That's not a bad idea of course, but it
> doesn't solve the problem I raised here.
> 
> > >>> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would
> > >>> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too.
> That
> > >>> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this
> is
> > >>> what does this patchset at the end).
> > >>>
> > >>> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link
> error
> > >>> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to
> > >>> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej.
> > >>
> > >> In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but
> I'd
> > >> consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice
> > >> intermediate step towards further clean-up.
> > >>
> > >> So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the
> > >> development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward.
> > >>
> > > I'm fine.
> > >
> > > Arnd, how about you?
> > >
> > > - Kukjin
> >
> > Arnd ?
> 
> Sorry for the delay. Yes, let's do it this way once more, but please
> come up with something better for the future that doesn't tie the
> cpuidle method to the root compatible string as this does.
> 
Good!

I will include this series into for-next and 2nd round of samsung
pull-request for 3.16.

Thanks,
Kukjin

[PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Kukjin Kim]

Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> 
> On Wednesday 21 May 2014 09:15:34 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > On 05/15/2014 10:40 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > >>>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there
> is
> > >>>> any
> > >>>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is
> matching
> > >>>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
> > >>>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any
> available
> > >>>> infrastructure for this.
> > >>>
> > >>> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].
> > >>>
> > >>> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the
> code
> > >>> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.
> > >>>
> > >>> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle
> and
> > >>> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the
> review
> > >>> and the maintenance.
> 
> Yes, that would be great. I only looked briefly at the series now, doesn't
> that require the use of psci? That's not a bad idea of course, but it
> doesn't solve the problem I raised here.
> 
> > >>> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would
> > >>> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too.
> That
> > >>> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this
> is
> > >>> what does this patchset at the end).
> > >>>
> > >>> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link
> error
> > >>> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to
> > >>> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej.
> > >>
> > >> In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but
> I'd
> > >> consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice
> > >> intermediate step towards further clean-up.
> > >>
> > >> So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the
> > >> development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward.
> > >>
> > > I'm fine.
> > >
> > > Arnd, how about you?
> > >
> > > - Kukjin
> >
> > Arnd ?
> 
> Sorry for the delay. Yes, let's do it this way once more, but please
> come up with something better for the future that doesn't tie the
> cpuidle method to the root compatible string as this does.
> 
Good!

I will include this series into for-next and 2nd round of samsung
pull-request for 3.16.

Thanks,
Kukjin

Re: [PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 21 May 2014 11:02:29 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/21/2014 10:10 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 21 May 2014 09:15:34 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> On 05/15/2014 10:40 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> >>
> >> [ ... ]
> >>
> >>>>>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is
> >>>>>> any
> >>>>>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
> >>>>>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
> >>>>>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
> >>>>>> infrastructure for this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code
> >>>>> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and
> >>>>> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review
> >>>>> and the maintenance.
> >
> > Yes, that would be great. I only looked briefly at the series now, doesn't
> > that require the use of psci?
> 
> No, because PSCI is for some specific platform (eg. calxeda), all the 
> other drivers are legacy and manually handling the PM via some low level 
> callbacks. This is why all drivers were implemented all over the place 
> making so difficult to maintain them. Little by little, we split the PM 
> callbacks from the idle algorithm so reducing the platform dependency 
> with the generic code.
>
> The PSCI implements such PM callbacks in the firmware directly and are 
> accessed through an API. PSCI is, let's say some kindof nextgen cpuidle. 
> It is similar than mwait on Intel. But if a new platform does not have 
> such firmware, then the cpuidle driver will have the legacy format.

Ok, thanks for the exlanation.

	Arnd

[PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 21 May 2014 11:02:29 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/21/2014 10:10 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 21 May 2014 09:15:34 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> >> On 05/15/2014 10:40 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> >>
> >> [ ... ]
> >>
> >>>>>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is
> >>>>>> any
> >>>>>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching
> >>>>>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific
> >>>>>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available
> >>>>>> infrastructure for this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code
> >>>>> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and
> >>>>> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review
> >>>>> and the maintenance.
> >
> > Yes, that would be great. I only looked briefly at the series now, doesn't
> > that require the use of psci?
> 
> No, because PSCI is for some specific platform (eg. calxeda), all the 
> other drivers are legacy and manually handling the PM via some low level 
> callbacks. This is why all drivers were implemented all over the place 
> making so difficult to maintain them. Little by little, we split the PM 
> callbacks from the idle algorithm so reducing the platform dependency 
> with the generic code.
>
> The PSCI implements such PM callbacks in the firmware directly and are 
> accessed through an API. PSCI is, let's say some kindof nextgen cpuidle. 
> It is similar than mwait on Intel. But if a new platform does not have 
> such firmware, then the cpuidle driver will have the legacy format.

Ok, thanks for the exlanation.

	Arnd

Re: [PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Kukjin Kim]

On 04/26/14 20:05, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>
>> On 14.04.2014 11:01, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kukjin,
>>>
>>> I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this
>>> patchset for next ?
>>
> Sure ;-)
>
>> +1.
>>
>> Also when applying you might add
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa<t.figa@samsung.com>
>>
>> to any patches that don't have it yet.
>>
> Tomasz, thanks for your review.
>
> I will take this series, "moving exynos-cpuidle into drivers/cpuidle" into samsung tree if Rafael is OK on that.
>
Daniel,

Can you please check/test the functionality your series with using my 
for-next because there were merge conflicts with mcpm-exynos stuff...?

Thanks,
Kukjin

[PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Kukjin Kim]

On 04/26/14 20:05, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>
>> On 14.04.2014 11:01, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Kukjin,
>>>
>>> I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this
>>> patchset for next ?
>>
> Sure ;-)
>
>> +1.
>>
>> Also when applying you might add
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa<t.figa@samsung.com>
>>
>> to any patches that don't have it yet.
>>
> Tomasz, thanks for your review.
>
> I will take this series, "moving exynos-cpuidle into drivers/cpuidle" into samsung tree if Rafael is OK on that.
>
Daniel,

Can you please check/test the functionality your series with using my 
for-next because there were merge conflicts with mcpm-exynos stuff...?

Thanks,
Kukjin

Re: [PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/22/2014 08:35 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> On 04/26/14 20:05, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>
>>> On 14.04.2014 11:01, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kukjin,
>>>>
>>>> I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this
>>>> patchset for next ?
>>>
>> Sure ;-)
>>
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> Also when applying you might add
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa<t.figa@samsung.com>
>>>
>>> to any patches that don't have it yet.
>>>
>> Tomasz, thanks for your review.
>>
>> I will take this series, "moving exynos-cpuidle into drivers/cpuidle"
>> into samsung tree if Rafael is OK on that.
>>
> Daniel,
>
> Can you please check/test the functionality your series with using my
> for-next because there were merge conflicts with mcpm-exynos stuff...?

Sure, will do that tomorrow.


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/22/2014 08:35 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> On 04/26/14 20:05, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>
>>> On 14.04.2014 11:01, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kukjin,
>>>>
>>>> I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this
>>>> patchset for next ?
>>>
>> Sure ;-)
>>
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> Also when applying you might add
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa<t.figa@samsung.com>
>>>
>>> to any patches that don't have it yet.
>>>
>> Tomasz, thanks for your review.
>>
>> I will take this series, "moving exynos-cpuidle into drivers/cpuidle"
>> into samsung tree if Rafael is OK on that.
>>
> Daniel,
>
> Can you please check/test the functionality your series with using my
> for-next because there were merge conflicts with mcpm-exynos stuff...?

Sure, will do that tomorrow.


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/22/2014 08:35 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> On 04/26/14 20:05, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>
>>> On 14.04.2014 11:01, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kukjin,
>>>>
>>>> I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this
>>>> patchset for next ?
>>>
>> Sure ;-)
>>
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> Also when applying you might add
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa<t.figa@samsung.com>
>>>
>>> to any patches that don't have it yet.
>>>
>> Tomasz, thanks for your review.
>>
>> I will take this series, "moving exynos-cpuidle into drivers/cpuidle"
>> into samsung tree if Rafael is OK on that.
>>
> Daniel,
>
> Can you please check/test the functionality your series with using my
> for-next because there were merge conflicts with mcpm-exynos stuff...?

Hi Kukjin,

I tested the latest tree. Unfortunately it panics when unplugging cpu1:

[    3.124189] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 
f8400024
[    3.129950] pgd = c0004000
[    3.132626] [f8400024] *pgd=6f7f7841, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
[    3.138877] Internal error: Oops: 827 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
[    3.192782] r3 : f8400024  r2 : f8180800  r1 : ee836e44  r0 : f8400024
[    3.199293] Flags: nZCv  IRQs off  FIQs on  Mode SVC_32  ISA ARM 
Segment kernel
[    3.206673] Control: 10c5387d  Table: 6e37c04a  DAC: 00000015
[    3.212398] Process swapper/0 (pid: 0, stack limit = 0xc0510240)
[    3.218388] Stack: (0xc0511ef4 to 0xc0512000)
[    3.222728] 1ee0: 00000030 c02b20f8 ee836e40
[    3.230894] 1f00: c001234c 6e880000 c0511f34 40018a80 00000000 
00000000 00000000 00000015
[    3.239053] 1f20: 4000404a 10c5387d 00000041 00f00000 00000000 
00000000 c02b20e4 edc4a540
[    3.247212] 1f40: c038dacc eefc5cf8 c050ecf0 c0543210 00000000 
c0012460 00000001 c0543210
[    3.255371] 1f60: eefc5cf8 c02b2148 b9f92927 00000000 c054326c 
c02b0968 b9f92927 00000000
[    3.263530] 1f80: c0510000 c0518480 c038dacc c0510000 c0510000 
c0518480 c038dacc eefc5cf8
[    3.271689] 1fa0: c0543210 c004e990 c0511fb4 c03873b8 00000000 
c04f90c8 00000000 c04d4b18
[    3.279848] 1fc0: ffffffff ffffffff c04d457c 00000000 00000000 
c04f90c8 00000000 10c5387d
[    3.288007] 1fe0: c0518410 c04f90c4 c051bd5c 4000406a 00000000 
40008074 00000000 00000000
[    3.296184] [<c0019c5c>] (exynos_enter_aftr) from [<c02b20f8>] 
(idle_finisher+0x14/0x20)
[    3.304247] [<c02b20f8>] (idle_finisher) from [<c001234c>] 
(cpu_suspend_abort+0x0/0x14)
[    3.312226] [<c001234c>] (cpu_suspend_abort) from [<00000000>] (  (null))
[    3.318994] Code: e34f3840 e3500010 11a00002 01a00003 (e5804000)
[    3.325069] ---[ end trace fca911f75a18c040 ]---


After git bisecting I falls on this commit:

commit b3205dea8fbf6db9b1e46a0dad19a0712fdff44f
Author: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue May 13 07:13:44 2014 +0900

     ARM: EXYNOS: Map SYSRAM through generic DT bindings

     Instead of hardcoding the SYSRAM details for each SoC,
     pass this information through device tree (DT) and make
     the code SoC agnostic. Generic DT SRAM bindings are
     used for achieving this.

     Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
     Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
     Acked-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
     Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
     Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>


... which is before my series is applied.

So I am not able to tell yet if my series is correctly rebased or not.

And before someone asks me, yes I updated the dtb :)



-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/22/2014 08:35 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> On 04/26/14 20:05, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>
>>> On 14.04.2014 11:01, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kukjin,
>>>>
>>>> I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this
>>>> patchset for next ?
>>>
>> Sure ;-)
>>
>>> +1.
>>>
>>> Also when applying you might add
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa<t.figa@samsung.com>
>>>
>>> to any patches that don't have it yet.
>>>
>> Tomasz, thanks for your review.
>>
>> I will take this series, "moving exynos-cpuidle into drivers/cpuidle"
>> into samsung tree if Rafael is OK on that.
>>
> Daniel,
>
> Can you please check/test the functionality your series with using my
> for-next because there were merge conflicts with mcpm-exynos stuff...?

Hi Kukjin,

I tested the latest tree. Unfortunately it panics when unplugging cpu1:

[    3.124189] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 
f8400024
[    3.129950] pgd = c0004000
[    3.132626] [f8400024] *pgd=6f7f7841, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
[    3.138877] Internal error: Oops: 827 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
[    3.192782] r3 : f8400024  r2 : f8180800  r1 : ee836e44  r0 : f8400024
[    3.199293] Flags: nZCv  IRQs off  FIQs on  Mode SVC_32  ISA ARM 
Segment kernel
[    3.206673] Control: 10c5387d  Table: 6e37c04a  DAC: 00000015
[    3.212398] Process swapper/0 (pid: 0, stack limit = 0xc0510240)
[    3.218388] Stack: (0xc0511ef4 to 0xc0512000)
[    3.222728] 1ee0: 00000030 c02b20f8 ee836e40
[    3.230894] 1f00: c001234c 6e880000 c0511f34 40018a80 00000000 
00000000 00000000 00000015
[    3.239053] 1f20: 4000404a 10c5387d 00000041 00f00000 00000000 
00000000 c02b20e4 edc4a540
[    3.247212] 1f40: c038dacc eefc5cf8 c050ecf0 c0543210 00000000 
c0012460 00000001 c0543210
[    3.255371] 1f60: eefc5cf8 c02b2148 b9f92927 00000000 c054326c 
c02b0968 b9f92927 00000000
[    3.263530] 1f80: c0510000 c0518480 c038dacc c0510000 c0510000 
c0518480 c038dacc eefc5cf8
[    3.271689] 1fa0: c0543210 c004e990 c0511fb4 c03873b8 00000000 
c04f90c8 00000000 c04d4b18
[    3.279848] 1fc0: ffffffff ffffffff c04d457c 00000000 00000000 
c04f90c8 00000000 10c5387d
[    3.288007] 1fe0: c0518410 c04f90c4 c051bd5c 4000406a 00000000 
40008074 00000000 00000000
[    3.296184] [<c0019c5c>] (exynos_enter_aftr) from [<c02b20f8>] 
(idle_finisher+0x14/0x20)
[    3.304247] [<c02b20f8>] (idle_finisher) from [<c001234c>] 
(cpu_suspend_abort+0x0/0x14)
[    3.312226] [<c001234c>] (cpu_suspend_abort) from [<00000000>] (  (null))
[    3.318994] Code: e34f3840 e3500010 11a00002 01a00003 (e5804000)
[    3.325069] ---[ end trace fca911f75a18c040 ]---


After git bisecting I falls on this commit:

commit b3205dea8fbf6db9b1e46a0dad19a0712fdff44f
Author: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue May 13 07:13:44 2014 +0900

     ARM: EXYNOS: Map SYSRAM through generic DT bindings

     Instead of hardcoding the SYSRAM details for each SoC,
     pass this information through device tree (DT) and make
     the code SoC agnostic. Generic DT SRAM bindings are
     used for achieving this.

     Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
     Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
     Acked-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
     Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
     Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>


... which is before my series is applied.

So I am not able to tell yet if my series is correctly rebased or not.

And before someone asks me, yes I updated the dtb :)



-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Tomasz Figa]

Hi Daniel,

On 23.05.2014 17:32, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/22/2014 08:35 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> On 04/26/14 20:05, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>>> Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 14.04.2014 11:01, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Kukjin,
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this
>>>>> patchset for next ?
>>>>
>>> Sure ;-)
>>>
>>>> +1.
>>>>
>>>> Also when applying you might add
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa<t.figa@samsung.com>
>>>>
>>>> to any patches that don't have it yet.
>>>>
>>> Tomasz, thanks for your review.
>>>
>>> I will take this series, "moving exynos-cpuidle into drivers/cpuidle"
>>> into samsung tree if Rafael is OK on that.
>>>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> Can you please check/test the functionality your series with using my
>> for-next because there were merge conflicts with mcpm-exynos stuff...?
> 
> Hi Kukjin,
> 
> I tested the latest tree. Unfortunately it panics when unplugging cpu1:
> 
> [    3.124189] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address
> f8400024
> [    3.129950] pgd = c0004000
> [    3.132626] [f8400024] *pgd=6f7f7841, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
> [    3.138877] Internal error: Oops: 827 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
> [    3.192782] r3 : f8400024  r2 : f8180800  r1 : ee836e44  r0 : f8400024
> [    3.199293] Flags: nZCv  IRQs off  FIQs on  Mode SVC_32  ISA ARM
> Segment kernel
> [    3.206673] Control: 10c5387d  Table: 6e37c04a  DAC: 00000015
> [    3.212398] Process swapper/0 (pid: 0, stack limit = 0xc0510240)
> [    3.218388] Stack: (0xc0511ef4 to 0xc0512000)
> [    3.222728] 1ee0: 00000030 c02b20f8 ee836e40
> [    3.230894] 1f00: c001234c 6e880000 c0511f34 40018a80 00000000
> 00000000 00000000 00000015
> [    3.239053] 1f20: 4000404a 10c5387d 00000041 00f00000 00000000
> 00000000 c02b20e4 edc4a540
> [    3.247212] 1f40: c038dacc eefc5cf8 c050ecf0 c0543210 00000000
> c0012460 00000001 c0543210
> [    3.255371] 1f60: eefc5cf8 c02b2148 b9f92927 00000000 c054326c
> c02b0968 b9f92927 00000000
> [    3.263530] 1f80: c0510000 c0518480 c038dacc c0510000 c0510000
> c0518480 c038dacc eefc5cf8
> [    3.271689] 1fa0: c0543210 c004e990 c0511fb4 c03873b8 00000000
> c04f90c8 00000000 c04d4b18
> [    3.279848] 1fc0: ffffffff ffffffff c04d457c 00000000 00000000
> c04f90c8 00000000 10c5387d
> [    3.288007] 1fe0: c0518410 c04f90c4 c051bd5c 4000406a 00000000
> 40008074 00000000 00000000
> [    3.296184] [<c0019c5c>] (exynos_enter_aftr) from [<c02b20f8>]
> (idle_finisher+0x14/0x20)
> [    3.304247] [<c02b20f8>] (idle_finisher) from [<c001234c>]
> (cpu_suspend_abort+0x0/0x14)
> [    3.312226] [<c001234c>] (cpu_suspend_abort) from [<00000000>] ( 
> (null))
> [    3.318994] Code: e34f3840 e3500010 11a00002 01a00003 (e5804000)
> [    3.325069] ---[ end trace fca911f75a18c040 ]---
> 
> 
> After git bisecting I falls on this commit:
> 
> commit b3205dea8fbf6db9b1e46a0dad19a0712fdff44f
> Author: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
> Date:   Tue May 13 07:13:44 2014 +0900
> 
>     ARM: EXYNOS: Map SYSRAM through generic DT bindings
> 
>     Instead of hardcoding the SYSRAM details for each SoC,
>     pass this information through device tree (DT) and make
>     the code SoC agnostic. Generic DT SRAM bindings are
>     used for achieving this.
> 
>     Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
>     Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>     Acked-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
>     Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
> 
> 
> ... which is before my series is applied.
> 
> So I am not able to tell yet if my series is correctly rebased or not.
> 
> And before someone asks me, yes I updated the dtb :)

The driver seemed to be working fine for me on Exynos4210-TRATS board
(with right bootloader, which supports AFTR).

Still, a quick look at the code reveals use of S5P_VA_SYSRAM macro, in
case of certain SoC revisions, which is not valid any longer, after
SYSRAM started to be mapped dynamically. As you can see in platsmp.c,
the new dynamic mapping is stored in sysram_base_addr variable, which is
static right now.

My proposed fix would be to make it non-static, declare it in one of
existing private headers (common.h probably) and use it in pm.c instead
of S5P_VA_SYSRAM.

Best regards,
Tomasz

[PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Tomasz Figa]

Hi Daniel,

On 23.05.2014 17:32, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/22/2014 08:35 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> On 04/26/14 20:05, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>>> Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 14.04.2014 11:01, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Kukjin,
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this
>>>>> patchset for next ?
>>>>
>>> Sure ;-)
>>>
>>>> +1.
>>>>
>>>> Also when applying you might add
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa<t.figa@samsung.com>
>>>>
>>>> to any patches that don't have it yet.
>>>>
>>> Tomasz, thanks for your review.
>>>
>>> I will take this series, "moving exynos-cpuidle into drivers/cpuidle"
>>> into samsung tree if Rafael is OK on that.
>>>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> Can you please check/test the functionality your series with using my
>> for-next because there were merge conflicts with mcpm-exynos stuff...?
> 
> Hi Kukjin,
> 
> I tested the latest tree. Unfortunately it panics when unplugging cpu1:
> 
> [    3.124189] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address
> f8400024
> [    3.129950] pgd = c0004000
> [    3.132626] [f8400024] *pgd=6f7f7841, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
> [    3.138877] Internal error: Oops: 827 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
> [    3.192782] r3 : f8400024  r2 : f8180800  r1 : ee836e44  r0 : f8400024
> [    3.199293] Flags: nZCv  IRQs off  FIQs on  Mode SVC_32  ISA ARM
> Segment kernel
> [    3.206673] Control: 10c5387d  Table: 6e37c04a  DAC: 00000015
> [    3.212398] Process swapper/0 (pid: 0, stack limit = 0xc0510240)
> [    3.218388] Stack: (0xc0511ef4 to 0xc0512000)
> [    3.222728] 1ee0: 00000030 c02b20f8 ee836e40
> [    3.230894] 1f00: c001234c 6e880000 c0511f34 40018a80 00000000
> 00000000 00000000 00000015
> [    3.239053] 1f20: 4000404a 10c5387d 00000041 00f00000 00000000
> 00000000 c02b20e4 edc4a540
> [    3.247212] 1f40: c038dacc eefc5cf8 c050ecf0 c0543210 00000000
> c0012460 00000001 c0543210
> [    3.255371] 1f60: eefc5cf8 c02b2148 b9f92927 00000000 c054326c
> c02b0968 b9f92927 00000000
> [    3.263530] 1f80: c0510000 c0518480 c038dacc c0510000 c0510000
> c0518480 c038dacc eefc5cf8
> [    3.271689] 1fa0: c0543210 c004e990 c0511fb4 c03873b8 00000000
> c04f90c8 00000000 c04d4b18
> [    3.279848] 1fc0: ffffffff ffffffff c04d457c 00000000 00000000
> c04f90c8 00000000 10c5387d
> [    3.288007] 1fe0: c0518410 c04f90c4 c051bd5c 4000406a 00000000
> 40008074 00000000 00000000
> [    3.296184] [<c0019c5c>] (exynos_enter_aftr) from [<c02b20f8>]
> (idle_finisher+0x14/0x20)
> [    3.304247] [<c02b20f8>] (idle_finisher) from [<c001234c>]
> (cpu_suspend_abort+0x0/0x14)
> [    3.312226] [<c001234c>] (cpu_suspend_abort) from [<00000000>] ( 
> (null))
> [    3.318994] Code: e34f3840 e3500010 11a00002 01a00003 (e5804000)
> [    3.325069] ---[ end trace fca911f75a18c040 ]---
> 
> 
> After git bisecting I falls on this commit:
> 
> commit b3205dea8fbf6db9b1e46a0dad19a0712fdff44f
> Author: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
> Date:   Tue May 13 07:13:44 2014 +0900
> 
>     ARM: EXYNOS: Map SYSRAM through generic DT bindings
> 
>     Instead of hardcoding the SYSRAM details for each SoC,
>     pass this information through device tree (DT) and make
>     the code SoC agnostic. Generic DT SRAM bindings are
>     used for achieving this.
> 
>     Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
>     Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>     Acked-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
>     Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
>     Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
> 
> 
> ... which is before my series is applied.
> 
> So I am not able to tell yet if my series is correctly rebased or not.
> 
> And before someone asks me, yes I updated the dtb :)

The driver seemed to be working fine for me on Exynos4210-TRATS board
(with right bootloader, which supports AFTR).

Still, a quick look at the code reveals use of S5P_VA_SYSRAM macro, in
case of certain SoC revisions, which is not valid any longer, after
SYSRAM started to be mapped dynamically. As you can see in platsmp.c,
the new dynamic mapping is stored in sysram_base_addr variable, which is
static right now.

My proposed fix would be to make it non-static, declare it in one of
existing private headers (common.h probably) and use it in pm.c instead
of S5P_VA_SYSRAM.

Best regards,
Tomasz

Re: [PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Sachin Kamat]

On 24 May 2014 03:01, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 23.05.2014 17:32, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 05/22/2014 08:35 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>>> On 04/26/14 20:05, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>>>> Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 14.04.2014 11:01, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Kukjin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this
>>>>>> patchset for next ?
>>>>>
>>>> Sure ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> +1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also when applying you might add
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa<t.figa@samsung.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> to any patches that don't have it yet.
>>>>>
>>>> Tomasz, thanks for your review.
>>>>
>>>> I will take this series, "moving exynos-cpuidle into drivers/cpuidle"
>>>> into samsung tree if Rafael is OK on that.
>>>>
>>> Daniel,
>>>
>>> Can you please check/test the functionality your series with using my
>>> for-next because there were merge conflicts with mcpm-exynos stuff...?
>>
>> Hi Kukjin,
>>
>> I tested the latest tree. Unfortunately it panics when unplugging cpu1:
>>
>> [    3.124189] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address
>> f8400024
>> [    3.129950] pgd = c0004000
>> [    3.132626] [f8400024] *pgd=6f7f7841, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
>> [    3.138877] Internal error: Oops: 827 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
>> [    3.192782] r3 : f8400024  r2 : f8180800  r1 : ee836e44  r0 : f8400024
>> [    3.199293] Flags: nZCv  IRQs off  FIQs on  Mode SVC_32  ISA ARM
>> Segment kernel
>> [    3.206673] Control: 10c5387d  Table: 6e37c04a  DAC: 00000015
>> [    3.212398] Process swapper/0 (pid: 0, stack limit = 0xc0510240)
>> [    3.218388] Stack: (0xc0511ef4 to 0xc0512000)
>> [    3.222728] 1ee0: 00000030 c02b20f8 ee836e40
>> [    3.230894] 1f00: c001234c 6e880000 c0511f34 40018a80 00000000
>> 00000000 00000000 00000015
>> [    3.239053] 1f20: 4000404a 10c5387d 00000041 00f00000 00000000
>> 00000000 c02b20e4 edc4a540
>> [    3.247212] 1f40: c038dacc eefc5cf8 c050ecf0 c0543210 00000000
>> c0012460 00000001 c0543210
>> [    3.255371] 1f60: eefc5cf8 c02b2148 b9f92927 00000000 c054326c
>> c02b0968 b9f92927 00000000
>> [    3.263530] 1f80: c0510000 c0518480 c038dacc c0510000 c0510000
>> c0518480 c038dacc eefc5cf8
>> [    3.271689] 1fa0: c0543210 c004e990 c0511fb4 c03873b8 00000000
>> c04f90c8 00000000 c04d4b18
>> [    3.279848] 1fc0: ffffffff ffffffff c04d457c 00000000 00000000
>> c04f90c8 00000000 10c5387d
>> [    3.288007] 1fe0: c0518410 c04f90c4 c051bd5c 4000406a 00000000
>> 40008074 00000000 00000000
>> [    3.296184] [<c0019c5c>] (exynos_enter_aftr) from [<c02b20f8>]
>> (idle_finisher+0x14/0x20)
>> [    3.304247] [<c02b20f8>] (idle_finisher) from [<c001234c>]
>> (cpu_suspend_abort+0x0/0x14)
>> [    3.312226] [<c001234c>] (cpu_suspend_abort) from [<00000000>] (
>> (null))
>> [    3.318994] Code: e34f3840 e3500010 11a00002 01a00003 (e5804000)
>> [    3.325069] ---[ end trace fca911f75a18c040 ]---
>>
>>
>> After git bisecting I falls on this commit:
>>
>> commit b3205dea8fbf6db9b1e46a0dad19a0712fdff44f
>> Author: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
>> Date:   Tue May 13 07:13:44 2014 +0900
>>
>>     ARM: EXYNOS: Map SYSRAM through generic DT bindings
>>
>>     Instead of hardcoding the SYSRAM details for each SoC,
>>     pass this information through device tree (DT) and make
>>     the code SoC agnostic. Generic DT SRAM bindings are
>>     used for achieving this.
>>
>>     Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
>>     Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>     Acked-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
>>     Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
>>     Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>>
>>
>> ... which is before my series is applied.
>>
>> So I am not able to tell yet if my series is correctly rebased or not.
>>
>> And before someone asks me, yes I updated the dtb :)
>
> The driver seemed to be working fine for me on Exynos4210-TRATS board
> (with right bootloader, which supports AFTR).
>
> Still, a quick look at the code reveals use of S5P_VA_SYSRAM macro, in
> case of certain SoC revisions, which is not valid any longer, after
> SYSRAM started to be mapped dynamically. As you can see in platsmp.c,
> the new dynamic mapping is stored in sysram_base_addr variable, which is
> static right now.
>
> My proposed fix would be to make it non-static, declare it in one of
> existing private headers (common.h probably) and use it in pm.c instead
> of S5P_VA_SYSRAM.

Yes, that is right. Just like the way it is done for sysram_ns_base_addr
in common.h

-- 
With warm regards,
Sachin

[PATCH V5 00/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the driver to drivers/cpuidle

[Sachin Kamat]

On 24 May 2014 03:01, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 23.05.2014 17:32, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 05/22/2014 08:35 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>>> On 04/26/14 20:05, Kukjin Kim wrote:
>>>> Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 14.04.2014 11:01, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Kukjin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe I addressed all the comments. Is it possible to take this
>>>>>> patchset for next ?
>>>>>
>>>> Sure ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> +1.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also when applying you might add
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa<t.figa@samsung.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> to any patches that don't have it yet.
>>>>>
>>>> Tomasz, thanks for your review.
>>>>
>>>> I will take this series, "moving exynos-cpuidle into drivers/cpuidle"
>>>> into samsung tree if Rafael is OK on that.
>>>>
>>> Daniel,
>>>
>>> Can you please check/test the functionality your series with using my
>>> for-next because there were merge conflicts with mcpm-exynos stuff...?
>>
>> Hi Kukjin,
>>
>> I tested the latest tree. Unfortunately it panics when unplugging cpu1:
>>
>> [    3.124189] Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address
>> f8400024
>> [    3.129950] pgd = c0004000
>> [    3.132626] [f8400024] *pgd=6f7f7841, *pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000
>> [    3.138877] Internal error: Oops: 827 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
>> [    3.192782] r3 : f8400024  r2 : f8180800  r1 : ee836e44  r0 : f8400024
>> [    3.199293] Flags: nZCv  IRQs off  FIQs on  Mode SVC_32  ISA ARM
>> Segment kernel
>> [    3.206673] Control: 10c5387d  Table: 6e37c04a  DAC: 00000015
>> [    3.212398] Process swapper/0 (pid: 0, stack limit = 0xc0510240)
>> [    3.218388] Stack: (0xc0511ef4 to 0xc0512000)
>> [    3.222728] 1ee0: 00000030 c02b20f8 ee836e40
>> [    3.230894] 1f00: c001234c 6e880000 c0511f34 40018a80 00000000
>> 00000000 00000000 00000015
>> [    3.239053] 1f20: 4000404a 10c5387d 00000041 00f00000 00000000
>> 00000000 c02b20e4 edc4a540
>> [    3.247212] 1f40: c038dacc eefc5cf8 c050ecf0 c0543210 00000000
>> c0012460 00000001 c0543210
>> [    3.255371] 1f60: eefc5cf8 c02b2148 b9f92927 00000000 c054326c
>> c02b0968 b9f92927 00000000
>> [    3.263530] 1f80: c0510000 c0518480 c038dacc c0510000 c0510000
>> c0518480 c038dacc eefc5cf8
>> [    3.271689] 1fa0: c0543210 c004e990 c0511fb4 c03873b8 00000000
>> c04f90c8 00000000 c04d4b18
>> [    3.279848] 1fc0: ffffffff ffffffff c04d457c 00000000 00000000
>> c04f90c8 00000000 10c5387d
>> [    3.288007] 1fe0: c0518410 c04f90c4 c051bd5c 4000406a 00000000
>> 40008074 00000000 00000000
>> [    3.296184] [<c0019c5c>] (exynos_enter_aftr) from [<c02b20f8>]
>> (idle_finisher+0x14/0x20)
>> [    3.304247] [<c02b20f8>] (idle_finisher) from [<c001234c>]
>> (cpu_suspend_abort+0x0/0x14)
>> [    3.312226] [<c001234c>] (cpu_suspend_abort) from [<00000000>] (
>> (null))
>> [    3.318994] Code: e34f3840 e3500010 11a00002 01a00003 (e5804000)
>> [    3.325069] ---[ end trace fca911f75a18c040 ]---
>>
>>
>> After git bisecting I falls on this commit:
>>
>> commit b3205dea8fbf6db9b1e46a0dad19a0712fdff44f
>> Author: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
>> Date:   Tue May 13 07:13:44 2014 +0900
>>
>>     ARM: EXYNOS: Map SYSRAM through generic DT bindings
>>
>>     Instead of hardcoding the SYSRAM details for each SoC,
>>     pass this information through device tree (DT) and make
>>     the code SoC agnostic. Generic DT SRAM bindings are
>>     used for achieving this.
>>
>>     Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>
>>     Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>     Acked-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
>>     Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
>>     Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
>>
>>
>> ... which is before my series is applied.
>>
>> So I am not able to tell yet if my series is correctly rebased or not.
>>
>> And before someone asks me, yes I updated the dtb :)
>
> The driver seemed to be working fine for me on Exynos4210-TRATS board
> (with right bootloader, which supports AFTR).
>
> Still, a quick look at the code reveals use of S5P_VA_SYSRAM macro, in
> case of certain SoC revisions, which is not valid any longer, after
> SYSRAM started to be mapped dynamically. As you can see in platsmp.c,
> the new dynamic mapping is stored in sysram_base_addr variable, which is
> static right now.
>
> My proposed fix would be to make it non-static, declare it in one of
> existing private headers (common.h probably) and use it in pm.c instead
> of S5P_VA_SYSRAM.

Yes, that is right. Just like the way it is done for sysram_ns_base_addr
in common.h

-- 
With warm regards,
Sachin

[PATCH] ARM: exynos: Fix kernel panic when unplugging CPU1 on 4210

[Daniel Lezcano]

A look at the code reveals use of S5P_VA_SYSRAM macro, in case of certain SoC
revisions, which is not valid any longer, after SYSRAM started to be mapped
dynamically. The new dynamic mapping is stored in sysram_base_addr variable,
which is declared static in platsmp.c

This fix makes sysram_base_addr non-static, declared it in common.h and used
in pm.c instead of S5P_VA_SYSRAM.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Suggested-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h  |    1 +
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c |    2 +-
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |    4 ++--
 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
index e2d0954..a012bc1 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
@@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ void mct_init(void __iomem *base, int irq_g0, int irq_l0, int irq_l1);
 
 struct map_desc;
 extern void __iomem *sysram_ns_base_addr;
+extern void __iomem *sysram_base_addr;
 void exynos_init_io(void);
 void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd);
 void exynos_cpuidle_init(void);
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
index 9c16da2..f2bea78 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
 
 extern void exynos4_secondary_startup(void);
 
-static void __iomem *sysram_base_addr;
+void __iomem *sysram_base_addr;
 void __iomem *sysram_ns_base_addr;
 
 static void __init exynos_smp_prepare_sysram(void)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index d10c351..87c0d34 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -168,10 +168,10 @@ int exynos_cluster_power_state(int cluster)
 
 #define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_ADDR	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
 			S5P_INFORM7 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
-			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x24) : S5P_INFORM0))
+			(sysram_base_addr + 0x24) : S5P_INFORM0))
 #define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_FLAG	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
 			S5P_INFORM6 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
-			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
+			(sysram_base_addr + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
 
 #define S5P_CHECK_AFTR  0xFCBA0D10
 #define S5P_CHECK_SLEEP 0x00000BAD
-- 
1.7.9.5

[PATCH] ARM: exynos: Fix kernel panic when unplugging CPU1 on 4210

[Daniel Lezcano]

A look at the code reveals use of S5P_VA_SYSRAM macro, in case of certain SoC
revisions, which is not valid any longer, after SYSRAM started to be mapped
dynamically. The new dynamic mapping is stored in sysram_base_addr variable,
which is declared static in platsmp.c

This fix makes sysram_base_addr non-static, declared it in common.h and used
in pm.c instead of S5P_VA_SYSRAM.

Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Suggested-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h  |    1 +
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c |    2 +-
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |    4 ++--
 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
index e2d0954..a012bc1 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
@@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ void mct_init(void __iomem *base, int irq_g0, int irq_l0, int irq_l1);
 
 struct map_desc;
 extern void __iomem *sysram_ns_base_addr;
+extern void __iomem *sysram_base_addr;
 void exynos_init_io(void);
 void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd);
 void exynos_cpuidle_init(void);
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
index 9c16da2..f2bea78 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
@@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
 
 extern void exynos4_secondary_startup(void);
 
-static void __iomem *sysram_base_addr;
+void __iomem *sysram_base_addr;
 void __iomem *sysram_ns_base_addr;
 
 static void __init exynos_smp_prepare_sysram(void)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
index d10c351..87c0d34 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
@@ -168,10 +168,10 @@ int exynos_cluster_power_state(int cluster)
 
 #define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_ADDR	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
 			S5P_INFORM7 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
-			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x24) : S5P_INFORM0))
+			(sysram_base_addr + 0x24) : S5P_INFORM0))
 #define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_FLAG	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
 			S5P_INFORM6 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
-			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
+			(sysram_base_addr + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
 
 #define S5P_CHECK_AFTR  0xFCBA0D10
 #define S5P_CHECK_SLEEP 0x00000BAD
-- 
1.7.9.5

Re: [PATCH] ARM: exynos: Fix kernel panic when unplugging CPU1 on 4210

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/24/2014 07:24 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> A look at the code reveals use of S5P_VA_SYSRAM macro, in case of certain SoC
> revisions, which is not valid any longer, after SYSRAM started to be mapped
> dynamically. The new dynamic mapping is stored in sysram_base_addr variable,
> which is declared static in platsmp.c
>
> This fix makes sysram_base_addr non-static, declared it in common.h and used
> in pm.c instead of S5P_VA_SYSRAM.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> Suggested-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>

Hi Kukjin,

with this fix I confirm cpuidle is working well with the AFTR state on 
the exynos 4210.

Regards
   -- Daniel

> ---
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h  |    1 +
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c |    2 +-
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |    4 ++--
>   3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
> index e2d0954..a012bc1 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
> @@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ void mct_init(void __iomem *base, int irq_g0, int irq_l0, int irq_l1);
>
>   struct map_desc;
>   extern void __iomem *sysram_ns_base_addr;
> +extern void __iomem *sysram_base_addr;
>   void exynos_init_io(void);
>   void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd);
>   void exynos_cpuidle_init(void);
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
> index 9c16da2..f2bea78 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
>
>   extern void exynos4_secondary_startup(void);
>
> -static void __iomem *sysram_base_addr;
> +void __iomem *sysram_base_addr;
>   void __iomem *sysram_ns_base_addr;
>
>   static void __init exynos_smp_prepare_sysram(void)
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> index d10c351..87c0d34 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> @@ -168,10 +168,10 @@ int exynos_cluster_power_state(int cluster)
>
>   #define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_ADDR	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
>   			S5P_INFORM7 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
> -			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x24) : S5P_INFORM0))
> +			(sysram_base_addr + 0x24) : S5P_INFORM0))
>   #define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_FLAG	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
>   			S5P_INFORM6 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
> -			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
> +			(sysram_base_addr + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
>
>   #define S5P_CHECK_AFTR  0xFCBA0D10
>   #define S5P_CHECK_SLEEP 0x00000BAD
>


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

[PATCH] ARM: exynos: Fix kernel panic when unplugging CPU1 on 4210

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 05/24/2014 07:24 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> A look at the code reveals use of S5P_VA_SYSRAM macro, in case of certain SoC
> revisions, which is not valid any longer, after SYSRAM started to be mapped
> dynamically. The new dynamic mapping is stored in sysram_base_addr variable,
> which is declared static in platsmp.c
>
> This fix makes sysram_base_addr non-static, declared it in common.h and used
> in pm.c instead of S5P_VA_SYSRAM.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> Suggested-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>

Hi Kukjin,

with this fix I confirm cpuidle is working well with the AFTR state on 
the exynos 4210.

Regards
   -- Daniel

> ---
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h  |    1 +
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c |    2 +-
>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |    4 ++--
>   3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
> index e2d0954..a012bc1 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h
> @@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ void mct_init(void __iomem *base, int irq_g0, int irq_l0, int irq_l1);
>
>   struct map_desc;
>   extern void __iomem *sysram_ns_base_addr;
> +extern void __iomem *sysram_base_addr;
>   void exynos_init_io(void);
>   void exynos_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd);
>   void exynos_cpuidle_init(void);
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
> index 9c16da2..f2bea78 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c
> @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
>
>   extern void exynos4_secondary_startup(void);
>
> -static void __iomem *sysram_base_addr;
> +void __iomem *sysram_base_addr;
>   void __iomem *sysram_ns_base_addr;
>
>   static void __init exynos_smp_prepare_sysram(void)
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> index d10c351..87c0d34 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> @@ -168,10 +168,10 @@ int exynos_cluster_power_state(int cluster)
>
>   #define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_ADDR	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
>   			S5P_INFORM7 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
> -			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x24) : S5P_INFORM0))
> +			(sysram_base_addr + 0x24) : S5P_INFORM0))
>   #define EXYNOS_BOOT_VECTOR_FLAG	(samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 ? \
>   			S5P_INFORM6 : (samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 ? \
> -			(S5P_VA_SYSRAM + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
> +			(sysram_base_addr + 0x20) : S5P_INFORM1))
>
>   #define S5P_CHECK_AFTR  0xFCBA0D10
>   #define S5P_CHECK_SLEEP 0x00000BAD
>


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

Re: [PATCH] ARM: exynos: Fix kernel panic when unplugging CPU1 on 4210

[Tomasz Figa]

Hi Daniel,

On 24.05.2014 19:24, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> A look at the code reveals use of S5P_VA_SYSRAM macro, in case of certain SoC
> revisions, which is not valid any longer, after SYSRAM started to be mapped
> dynamically. The new dynamic mapping is stored in sysram_base_addr variable,
> which is declared static in platsmp.c
> 
> This fix makes sysram_base_addr non-static, declared it in common.h and used
> in pm.c instead of S5P_VA_SYSRAM.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> Suggested-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h  |    1 +
>  arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c |    2 +-
>  arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |    4 ++--
>  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>

Best regards,
Tomasz

[PATCH] ARM: exynos: Fix kernel panic when unplugging CPU1 on 4210

[Tomasz Figa]

Hi Daniel,

On 24.05.2014 19:24, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> A look at the code reveals use of S5P_VA_SYSRAM macro, in case of certain SoC
> revisions, which is not valid any longer, after SYSRAM started to be mapped
> dynamically. The new dynamic mapping is stored in sysram_base_addr variable,
> which is declared static in platsmp.c
> 
> This fix makes sysram_base_addr non-static, declared it in common.h and used
> in pm.c instead of S5P_VA_SYSRAM.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> Suggested-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h  |    1 +
>  arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c |    2 +-
>  arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |    4 ++--
>  3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 

Looks good to me.

Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>

Best regards,
Tomasz

Re: [PATCH] ARM: exynos: Fix kernel panic when unplugging CPU1 on 4210

[Kukjin Kim]

On 05/25/14 02:31, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/24/2014 07:24 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> A look at the code reveals use of S5P_VA_SYSRAM macro, in case of
>> certain SoC
>> revisions, which is not valid any longer, after SYSRAM started to be
>> mapped
>> dynamically. The new dynamic mapping is stored in sysram_base_addr
>> variable,
>> which is declared static in platsmp.c
>>
>> This fix makes sysram_base_addr non-static, declared it in common.h
>> and used
>> in pm.c instead of S5P_VA_SYSRAM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>> Suggested-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
>
> Hi Kukjin,
>
> with this fix I confirm cpuidle is working well with the AFTR state on
> the exynos 4210.
>
Thanks a lot.

I've applied this fix on top of cpuidle-exynos branch.

- Kukjin

[PATCH] ARM: exynos: Fix kernel panic when unplugging CPU1 on 4210

[Kukjin Kim]

On 05/25/14 02:31, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 05/24/2014 07:24 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> A look at the code reveals use of S5P_VA_SYSRAM macro, in case of
>> certain SoC
>> revisions, which is not valid any longer, after SYSRAM started to be
>> mapped
>> dynamically. The new dynamic mapping is stored in sysram_base_addr
>> variable,
>> which is declared static in platsmp.c
>>
>> This fix makes sysram_base_addr non-static, declared it in common.h
>> and used
>> in pm.c instead of S5P_VA_SYSRAM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
>> Suggested-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
>
> Hi Kukjin,
>
> with this fix I confirm cpuidle is working well with the AFTR state on
> the exynos 4210.
>
Thanks a lot.

I've applied this fix on top of cpuidle-exynos branch.

- Kukjin

Re: [PATCH V5 16/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the power sequence call in the cpu_pm notifier

[Chander Kashyap]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
> The code to initiate and exit the powerdown sequence is the same in pm.c and
> cpuidle.c.
>
> Let's split the common part in the pm.c and reuse it from the cpu_pm notifier.
>
> That is one more step forward to make the cpuidle driver arch indenpendant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   22 ----------------------
>  arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
>  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
> index e6d813d..02609ac 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
> @@ -28,7 +28,6 @@
>  #include <mach/map.h>
>
>  #include "common.h"
> -#include "regs-pmu.h"
>
>  static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
>  {
> @@ -42,31 +41,10 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>                                 struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
>                                 int index)
>  {
> -       unsigned long tmp;
> -
> -       /* Setting Central Sequence Register for power down mode */
> -       tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
> -       tmp &= ~S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
> -       __raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
> -
>         cpu_pm_enter();
>         cpu_suspend(0, idle_finisher);
>         cpu_pm_exit();
>
> -       /*
> -        * If PMU failed while entering sleep mode, WFI will be
> -        * ignored by PMU and then exiting cpu_do_idle().
> -        * S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG bit will not be set automatically
> -        * in this situation.
> -        */
> -       tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
> -       if (!(tmp & S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG)) {
> -               tmp |= S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
> -               __raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
> -               /* Clear wakeup state register */
> -               __raw_writel(0x0, S5P_WAKEUP_STAT);
> -       }
> -
>         return index;
>  }
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> index 50b6b4d..6d9ef69 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> @@ -213,15 +213,21 @@ static void exynos_pm_prepare(void)
>         __raw_writel(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume), S5P_INFORM0);
>  }
>
> -static int exynos_pm_suspend(void)
> +static void exynos_pm_central_suspend(void)
>  {
>         unsigned long tmp;
>
>         /* Setting Central Sequence Register for power down mode */
> -
>         tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
>         tmp &= ~S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
>         __raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
> +}
> +
> +static int exynos_pm_suspend(void)
> +{
> +       unsigned long tmp;
> +
> +       exynos_pm_central_suspend();
>
>         /* Setting SEQ_OPTION register */
>
> @@ -234,7 +240,7 @@ static int exynos_pm_suspend(void)
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> -static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
> +static int exynos_pm_central_resume(void)
>  {
>         unsigned long tmp;
>
> @@ -251,9 +257,17 @@ static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
>                 /* clear the wakeup state register */
>                 __raw_writel(0x0, S5P_WAKEUP_STAT);
>                 /* No need to perform below restore code */
> -               goto early_wakeup;
> +               return -1;
>         }
>
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
> +{
> +       if (exynos_pm_central_resume())
> +               goto early_wakeup;
> +
>         if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
>                 exynos_cpu_restore_register();
>
> @@ -359,6 +373,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
>         switch (cmd) {
>         case CPU_PM_ENTER:
>                 if (cpu == 0) {
> +                       exynos_pm_central_suspend();
>                         exynos_cpu_save_register();
>                 }
>                 break;
> @@ -368,6 +383,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
>                         if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
>                                 scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
>                         exynos_cpu_restore_register();
> +                       exynos_pm_central_resume();

This notifier is called for system wide suspend and cpuidle.

In case of Exynos cpuidle only AFTR and LPA state need to program
central_sequencer and store/restore the registers.

But in 5420 (core-power-down), this is not required, and causing the regression.

Hence need to remove this notifier, or need to find a way to
differentiate the cpuidle state.


>                 }
>                 break;
>         }
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH V5 16/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the power sequence call in the cpu_pm notifier

[Chander Kashyap]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano
<daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
> The code to initiate and exit the powerdown sequence is the same in pm.c and
> cpuidle.c.
>
> Let's split the common part in the pm.c and reuse it from the cpu_pm notifier.
>
> That is one more step forward to make the cpuidle driver arch indenpendant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c |   22 ----------------------
>  arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c      |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++----
>  2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
> index e6d813d..02609ac 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c
> @@ -28,7 +28,6 @@
>  #include <mach/map.h>
>
>  #include "common.h"
> -#include "regs-pmu.h"
>
>  static int idle_finisher(unsigned long flags)
>  {
> @@ -42,31 +41,10 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev,
>                                 struct cpuidle_driver *drv,
>                                 int index)
>  {
> -       unsigned long tmp;
> -
> -       /* Setting Central Sequence Register for power down mode */
> -       tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
> -       tmp &= ~S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
> -       __raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
> -
>         cpu_pm_enter();
>         cpu_suspend(0, idle_finisher);
>         cpu_pm_exit();
>
> -       /*
> -        * If PMU failed while entering sleep mode, WFI will be
> -        * ignored by PMU and then exiting cpu_do_idle().
> -        * S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG bit will not be set automatically
> -        * in this situation.
> -        */
> -       tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
> -       if (!(tmp & S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG)) {
> -               tmp |= S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
> -               __raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
> -               /* Clear wakeup state register */
> -               __raw_writel(0x0, S5P_WAKEUP_STAT);
> -       }
> -
>         return index;
>  }
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> index 50b6b4d..6d9ef69 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c
> @@ -213,15 +213,21 @@ static void exynos_pm_prepare(void)
>         __raw_writel(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume), S5P_INFORM0);
>  }
>
> -static int exynos_pm_suspend(void)
> +static void exynos_pm_central_suspend(void)
>  {
>         unsigned long tmp;
>
>         /* Setting Central Sequence Register for power down mode */
> -
>         tmp = __raw_readl(S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
>         tmp &= ~S5P_CENTRAL_LOWPWR_CFG;
>         __raw_writel(tmp, S5P_CENTRAL_SEQ_CONFIGURATION);
> +}
> +
> +static int exynos_pm_suspend(void)
> +{
> +       unsigned long tmp;
> +
> +       exynos_pm_central_suspend();
>
>         /* Setting SEQ_OPTION register */
>
> @@ -234,7 +240,7 @@ static int exynos_pm_suspend(void)
>         return 0;
>  }
>
> -static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
> +static int exynos_pm_central_resume(void)
>  {
>         unsigned long tmp;
>
> @@ -251,9 +257,17 @@ static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
>                 /* clear the wakeup state register */
>                 __raw_writel(0x0, S5P_WAKEUP_STAT);
>                 /* No need to perform below restore code */
> -               goto early_wakeup;
> +               return -1;
>         }
>
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void exynos_pm_resume(void)
> +{
> +       if (exynos_pm_central_resume())
> +               goto early_wakeup;
> +
>         if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
>                 exynos_cpu_restore_register();
>
> @@ -359,6 +373,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
>         switch (cmd) {
>         case CPU_PM_ENTER:
>                 if (cpu == 0) {
> +                       exynos_pm_central_suspend();
>                         exynos_cpu_save_register();
>                 }
>                 break;
> @@ -368,6 +383,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
>                         if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
>                                 scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
>                         exynos_cpu_restore_register();
> +                       exynos_pm_central_resume();

This notifier is called for system wide suspend and cpuidle.

In case of Exynos cpuidle only AFTR and LPA state need to program
central_sequencer and store/restore the registers.

But in 5420 (core-power-down), this is not required, and causing the regression.

Hence need to remove this notifier, or need to find a way to
differentiate the cpuidle state.


>                 }
>                 break;
>         }
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH V5 16/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the power sequence call in the cpu_pm notifier

[Tomasz Figa]

Hi Chander,

On 26.06.2014 11:07, Chander Kashyap wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:

[snip]

>> @@ -359,6 +373,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
>>         switch (cmd) {
>>         case CPU_PM_ENTER:
>>                 if (cpu == 0) {
>> +                       exynos_pm_central_suspend();
>>                         exynos_cpu_save_register();
>>                 }
>>                 break;
>> @@ -368,6 +383,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
>>                         if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
>>                                 scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
>>                         exynos_cpu_restore_register();
>> +                       exynos_pm_central_resume();
> 
> This notifier is called for system wide suspend and cpuidle.
> 
> In case of Exynos cpuidle only AFTR and LPA state need to program
> central_sequencer and store/restore the registers.
> 
> But in 5420 (core-power-down), this is not required, and causing the regression.
> 
> Hence need to remove this notifier, or need to find a way to
> differentiate the cpuidle state.

This patch is already present in v3.16. Moreover, Exynos5420 cpuidle has
not been merged yet. This means that this issue is not a regression and
I believe any further work on this should be carried out as further
patches on top of this change.

Anyway, this change has introduced a regression, though, but in another
area - it broke suspend, at least on Exynos4-based devices, because now
certain steps are performed twice. I've sent a patch for 3.16-rc3 to fix
this by dropping custom suspend-specific syscore ops, effectively moving
most of the handling to CPU PM notifier, which also matches requirements
of AFTR and lower power states. See [1].

[1]
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org/msg32935.html

However, in this case, moving back to suspend-specific syscore_ops and
simply duplicating some code for lower cpuidle states might be a better
option. Care to send a patch (fix for 3.16, replacing mine) or I should
do it?

Best regards,
Tomasz

[PATCH V5 16/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the power sequence call in the cpu_pm notifier

[Tomasz Figa]

Hi Chander,

On 26.06.2014 11:07, Chander Kashyap wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano
> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:

[snip]

>> @@ -359,6 +373,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
>>         switch (cmd) {
>>         case CPU_PM_ENTER:
>>                 if (cpu == 0) {
>> +                       exynos_pm_central_suspend();
>>                         exynos_cpu_save_register();
>>                 }
>>                 break;
>> @@ -368,6 +383,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
>>                         if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
>>                                 scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
>>                         exynos_cpu_restore_register();
>> +                       exynos_pm_central_resume();
> 
> This notifier is called for system wide suspend and cpuidle.
> 
> In case of Exynos cpuidle only AFTR and LPA state need to program
> central_sequencer and store/restore the registers.
> 
> But in 5420 (core-power-down), this is not required, and causing the regression.
> 
> Hence need to remove this notifier, or need to find a way to
> differentiate the cpuidle state.

This patch is already present in v3.16. Moreover, Exynos5420 cpuidle has
not been merged yet. This means that this issue is not a regression and
I believe any further work on this should be carried out as further
patches on top of this change.

Anyway, this change has introduced a regression, though, but in another
area - it broke suspend, at least on Exynos4-based devices, because now
certain steps are performed twice. I've sent a patch for 3.16-rc3 to fix
this by dropping custom suspend-specific syscore ops, effectively moving
most of the handling to CPU PM notifier, which also matches requirements
of AFTR and lower power states. See [1].

[1]
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-samsung-soc at vger.kernel.org/msg32935.html

However, in this case, moving back to suspend-specific syscore_ops and
simply duplicating some code for lower cpuidle states might be a better
option. Care to send a patch (fix for 3.16, replacing mine) or I should
do it?

Best regards,
Tomasz

Re: [PATCH V5 16/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the power sequence call in the cpu_pm notifier

[Chander Kashyap]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com> wrote:
> Hi Chander,
>
> On 26.06.2014 11:07, Chander Kashyap wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano
>> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> @@ -359,6 +373,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
>>>         switch (cmd) {
>>>         case CPU_PM_ENTER:
>>>                 if (cpu == 0) {
>>> +                       exynos_pm_central_suspend();
>>>                         exynos_cpu_save_register();
>>>                 }
>>>                 break;
>>> @@ -368,6 +383,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
>>>                         if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
>>>                                 scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
>>>                         exynos_cpu_restore_register();
>>> +                       exynos_pm_central_resume();
>>
>> This notifier is called for system wide suspend and cpuidle.
>>
>> In case of Exynos cpuidle only AFTR and LPA state need to program
>> central_sequencer and store/restore the registers.
>>
>> But in 5420 (core-power-down), this is not required, and causing the regression.
>>
>> Hence need to remove this notifier, or need to find a way to
>> differentiate the cpuidle state.
>
> This patch is already present in v3.16. Moreover, Exynos5420 cpuidle has
> not been merged yet. This means that this issue is not a regression and
> I believe any further work on this should be carried out as further
> patches on top of this change.
>
> Anyway, this change has introduced a regression, though, but in another
> area - it broke suspend, at least on Exynos4-based devices, because now
> certain steps are performed twice. I've sent a patch for 3.16-rc3 to fix
> this by dropping custom suspend-specific syscore ops, effectively moving
> most of the handling to CPU PM notifier, which also matches requirements
> of AFTR and lower power states. See [1].
>
> [1]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org/msg32935.html
>
> However, in this case, moving back to suspend-specific syscore_ops and
> simply duplicating some code for lower cpuidle states might be a better
> option. Care to send a patch (fix for 3.16, replacing mine) or I should
> do it?

Yes need to move the common code to lower cpuildle implementation and
removing the notifier all together.
I will do it and send the patch.


>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH V5 16/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move the power sequence call in the cpu_pm notifier

[Chander Kashyap]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com> wrote:
> Hi Chander,
>
> On 26.06.2014 11:07, Chander Kashyap wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano
>> <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> @@ -359,6 +373,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
>>>         switch (cmd) {
>>>         case CPU_PM_ENTER:
>>>                 if (cpu == 0) {
>>> +                       exynos_pm_central_suspend();
>>>                         exynos_cpu_save_register();
>>>                 }
>>>                 break;
>>> @@ -368,6 +383,7 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self,
>>>                         if (!soc_is_exynos5250())
>>>                                 scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU);
>>>                         exynos_cpu_restore_register();
>>> +                       exynos_pm_central_resume();
>>
>> This notifier is called for system wide suspend and cpuidle.
>>
>> In case of Exynos cpuidle only AFTR and LPA state need to program
>> central_sequencer and store/restore the registers.
>>
>> But in 5420 (core-power-down), this is not required, and causing the regression.
>>
>> Hence need to remove this notifier, or need to find a way to
>> differentiate the cpuidle state.
>
> This patch is already present in v3.16. Moreover, Exynos5420 cpuidle has
> not been merged yet. This means that this issue is not a regression and
> I believe any further work on this should be carried out as further
> patches on top of this change.
>
> Anyway, this change has introduced a regression, though, but in another
> area - it broke suspend, at least on Exynos4-based devices, because now
> certain steps are performed twice. I've sent a patch for 3.16-rc3 to fix
> this by dropping custom suspend-specific syscore ops, effectively moving
> most of the handling to CPU PM notifier, which also matches requirements
> of AFTR and lower power states. See [1].
>
> [1]
> http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-samsung-soc at vger.kernel.org/msg32935.html
>
> However, in this case, moving back to suspend-specific syscore_ops and
> simply duplicating some code for lower cpuidle states might be a better
> option. Care to send a patch (fix for 3.16, replacing mine) or I should
> do it?

Yes need to move the common code to lower cpuildle implementation and
removing the notifier all together.
I will do it and send the patch.


>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html