[PATCH 3/3] powerpc/fsl: Use the new interface to save or restore registers

[Dongsheng.Wang at freescale.com]

> > > > Use fsl_cpu_state_save/fsl_cpu_state_restore to save/restore registers.
> > > > Use the functions to save/restore registers, so we don't need to
> > > > maintain the code.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Wang Dongsheng <dongsheng.wang at freescale.com>
> > >
> > > Is there any functional change with this patchset (e.g. suspend
> > > supported on chips where it wasn't before), or is it just cleanup?  A
> > > cover letter would be useful to describe the purpose of the overall
> > > patchset when it isn't obvious.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, just cleanup..
> 
> It seems to be introducing complexity rather than removing it.  Is this
> cleanup needed to prepare for adding new functionality?
> 
> Plus, I'm skeptical that this is functionally equivalent.  It looks like
> the new code saves a lot more than the old code does.  Why?
> 

Actually, I want to take a practical example to push the save/restore patches.
And this is also reasonable for 32bit-hibernation, the code is more clean. :)
I think I need to change the description of the patch.

> > > > +
> > > > +	/* Restore base register */
> > > > +	li	r4, 0
> > > > +	bl	fsl_cpu_state_restore
> > >
> > > Why are you calling anything with "fsl" in the name from code that is
> > > supposed to be for all booke?
> > >
> > E200, E300 not support.
> > Support E500, E500v2, E500MC, E5500, E6500.
> >
> > Do you have any suggestions about this?
> 
> What about non-FSL booke such as 44x?
> 
> Or if this file never supported 44x, rename it appropriately.
> 
Currently does not support. ok change the name first, if later support, and
then again to modify the name of this function.

How about 85xx_cpu_state_restore?

Thanks,
-Dongsheng