Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 4 Aug 2020 17:08:41 +0200 | From | Alexandre Belloni <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: at91: pm: add per soc validation of pm modes |
| |
On 04/08/2020 15:00:38+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote: > > > On 04.08.2020 14:42, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe > > > > 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. > > OK, but bootargs is parsed at a moment when there is no information about > the machine that is running the code. And enforcing this in *_pm_init() > functions for rm9200 and at91sam9 may change suspend and standby mode that > user selected. If there is no user up to this moment there is still the > possibility of being one in the future. >
So let's prevent users from doing that. Unused arguments are silently ignored which is exactly what we want to do. You won't make me believe there is actually a use case for swapping the standby and suspend meanings.
-- Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
| |