RE: [PATCH v2 04/28] ARM: mm: cache-l2x0: Add support for re-enabling l2x0
From: Santosh Shilimkar
Date: Tue Jan 25 2011 - 13:32:27 EST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Catalin Marinas [mailto:catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 11:44 PM
> To: Russell King - ARM Linux
> Cc: Colin Cross; linux-tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-
> kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; olof@xxxxxxxxx; konkers@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> Santosh Shilimkar; Linus Walleij; Tony Lindgren; linux-
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/28] ARM: mm: cache-l2x0: Add support for
> re-enabling l2x0
> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 15:41 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > I think we need to come up with some proper way to deal with
> > which doesn't involve adding lots of globally visible functions to
> > sorts of bits of code and having platforms call them individually,
> > otherwise this is going to get _really_ messy in the future.
> > Maybe we need a notifier list which can be told when cpuidle
> > happen, so that parts of the system such as VFP and L2 cache
> > can do the right thing without having platforms add lots of stuff
> > gic_secondary_init();
> > gic_restore_interrupt_types();
> > vfp_enable();
> > l2x0_enable();
> > twd_enable();
> > ... etc ...
> > in their SoC specific code.
> But do we need a strict order between such operations? The notifier
> chain isn't too flexible.
I guess it does depends on how the archs have integrated a9. Example
on OMAP there are different power modes possible.
1. CPU context ,TWD lost
2. CPU context ,TWD + L1 is lost
3. CPU context + L1 is lost + GIC lost
4. CPU context + L1 is lost + GIC lost + L2 lost
So there is need to have flexibility of calling these function
based on power modes. I don't know how notifiers can give
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/