[PATCH 03/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Introduce lowlevel suspend function

[mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 02:00:09PM +0100, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> From: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> 
> acpi_wakeup_address is used on x86 as the address bios jumps into
> when machine wakes up from suspend. As arm64 does not have such a
> bios this mechanism will be provided by other means. But the define
> is still required inside the acpi core.
> 
> Introduce a null stub for acpi_suspend_lowlevel as this is also
> required by core. This will be filled in when standards are
> defined for arm64 ACPI global power states.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h |   12 ++++++++++++
>  arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c      |    7 +++++++
>  2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> index e8581ea..44b617f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> @@ -36,6 +36,18 @@ static inline bool acpi_has_cpu_in_madt(void)
>  	return 1;
>  }
>  
> +/* Low-level suspend routine.
> + *
> + * ACPI S-states for ARM64 have to be defined
> + * and approved before doing anything else, maybe
> + * we need update the ACPI spec, here we
> + * just introduce function and macro needed by
> + * ACPI core as IA64 did, and revisit them when
> + * the spec is ready.
> + */
> +extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
> +#define acpi_wakeup_address 0
> +
>  #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
>  
>  #endif /*_ASM_ACPI_H*/
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> index ac78e4e..f5a10b5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c
> @@ -95,3 +95,10 @@ static int __init parse_acpi(char *arg)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  early_param("acpi", parse_acpi);
> +
> +/*
> + * acpi_suspend_lowlevel() - save kernel state and suspend.
> + *
> + * TBD when ARM/ARM64 starts to support suspend...
> + */
> +int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);

Shouldn't this should be intialised to NULL explicitly?

Thanks,
Mark.