lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: at91: pm: add per soc validation of pm modes
Hello,

On 04/08/2020 14:07:37+0300, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
> void __init at91rm9200_pm_init(void)
> {
> + static const int modes[] __initconst = {

You don't need that to be static as it is now local to the function.

> + AT91_PM_STANDBY, AT91_PM_ULP0
> + };
> +
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SOC_AT91RM9200))
> return;
>
> + at91_pm_modes_validate(modes, ARRAY_SIZE(modes));

For rm9200 and at91sam9, I would not allow changing the pm_modes and
simply enforce standby_mode = AT91_PM_STANDBY and suspend_mode =
AT91_PM_ULP0. I don't think you have any user that ever changed that
behaviour also that avoids increasing the boot time for those slow SoCs.

> at91_dt_ramc();
>
> /*
> @@ -838,9 +888,14 @@ void __init at91rm9200_pm_init(void)
>
> void __init sam9x60_pm_init(void)
> {
> + static const int modes[] __initconst = {
> + AT91_PM_STANDBY, AT91_PM_ULP0, AT91_PM_ULP0_FAST, AT91_PM_ULP1,
> + };
> +
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SOC_SAM9X60))
> return;
>
> + at91_pm_modes_validate(modes, ARRAY_SIZE(modes));
> at91_pm_modes_init();
> at91_dt_ramc();
> at91_pm_init(at91sam9x60_idle);
> @@ -851,14 +906,19 @@ void __init sam9x60_pm_init(void)
>
> void __init at91sam9_pm_init(void)
> {
> + static const int modes[] __initconst = {
> + AT91_PM_STANDBY, AT91_PM_ULP0,
> + };
> +
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SOC_AT91SAM9))
> return;
>
> + at91_pm_modes_validate(modes, ARRAY_SIZE(modes));
> at91_dt_ramc();
> at91_pm_init(at91sam9_idle);
> }
>
> -void __init sama5_pm_init(void)
> +static void __init sama5_pm(void)
> {
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SOC_SAMA5))
> return;
> @@ -867,13 +927,32 @@ void __init sama5_pm_init(void)
> at91_pm_init(NULL);
> }
>
> +void __init sama5_pm_init(void)
> +{
> + static const int modes[] __initconst = {
> + AT91_PM_STANDBY, AT91_PM_ULP0, AT91_PM_ULP0_FAST,
> + };
> +
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SOC_SAMA5))
> + return;
> +
> + at91_pm_modes_validate(modes, ARRAY_SIZE(modes));
> + sama5_pm();
> +}
> +
> void __init sama5d2_pm_init(void)
> {
> + static const int modes[] __initconst = {
> + AT91_PM_STANDBY, AT91_PM_ULP0, AT91_PM_ULP0_FAST, AT91_PM_ULP1,
> + AT91_PM_BACKUP,
> + };
> +
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SOC_SAMA5D2))
> return;
>
> + at91_pm_modes_validate(modes, ARRAY_SIZE(modes));
> at91_pm_modes_init();
> - sama5_pm_init();
> + sama5_pm();

I would call those two directly:
at91_dt_ramc();
at91_pm_init(NULL);

instead of having a function that doesn't do much.

--
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-08-04 13:42    [W:0.043 / U:0.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site