Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3]PM/Sleep: Timer quiesce in freeze state | Date | Mon, 26 Jan 2015 15:45:43 +0100 |
| |
On Monday, January 26, 2015 03:15:43 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Monday, January 26, 2015 10:40:24 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Li, Aubrey wrote: > > > > On 2015/1/22 18:15, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > Can we please stop adding more crap to that notifier thing? I rather > > > > > see that go away than being expanded. > > > > > > > > Are you referring to FREEZE_PREPARE or remove all of FREEZE staff at all? > > > > > > > > What's the disadvantage of adding more notifier? > > > > > > clockevents_notify() is not a notifier. Its a multiplex call and I > > > want to get rid of it and replace it with explicit functions. > > > > OK, so perhaps we need to move _SUSPEND/_RESUME out of there to start with? > > > > As far as I can say, clockevents_notify(CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_SUSPEND, NULL) and > > clockevents_notify(CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_RESUME, NULL) are each only called from > > one place and moreover, since they are in syscore_ops, we don't need any > > locking around them. > > > > So what about the patch below? > > I'm cleaning up the whole replacement of notify. The stuff below is > part of it. > > > > > - clockevents_notify(CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_SUSPEND, NULL); > > + tick_suspend(); > > + tick_suspend_broadcast(); > > That's exactly the stuff I don't want to see. Blind code > move.
At least it's clear what the patch does. :-)
> tick_suspend_broadcast() wants to be called from tick_suspend().
OK
> Still compiling and testing a gazillion of combinations.
OK, so it looks like we need to wait with the suspend to idle changes until this lands.
Rafael
| |