[PATCH 1/2] mpc85xx/lbc: modify suspend/resume entry sequence

[Dogra Raghav]

-----Original Message-----
From: Wood Scott-B07421 
Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 11:10 AM
To: Dogra Raghav-B46184 <raghav at freescale.com>
Cc: Kushwaha Prabhakar-B32579 <prabhakar at freescale.com>; linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mpc85xx/lbc: modify suspend/resume entry sequence

On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 23:31 -0600, Dogra Raghav-B46184 wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 4:31 AM
> To: Dogra Raghav-B46184 <raghav at freescale.com>
> Cc: Kushwaha Prabhakar-B32579 <prabhakar at freescale.com>; 
> linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mpc85xx/lbc: modify suspend/resume entry 
> sequence
> 
> On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 00:12 -0600, Dogra Raghav-B46184 wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Raghav Dogra [mailto:raghav at freescale.com]
> > Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 11:55 AM
> > To: linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org
> > Cc: Wood Scott-B07421 <scottwood at freescale.com>; Kushwaha
> > Prabhakar-B32579 < prabhakar at freescale.com>; Dogra Raghav-B46184 
> > <raghav at freescale.com>
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] mpc85xx/lbc: modify suspend/resume entry 
> > sequence
> > 
> > Modify platform driver suspend/resume to syscore suspend/resume. 
> > This is because p1022ds needs to use localbus when entering the PCIE resume.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Raghav Dogra <raghav at freescale.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/powerpc/sysdev/Makefile  |  2 +-  
> > arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_lbc.c
> > > 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > ---
> >  2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/Makefile 
> > b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/Makefile index f7cb2a1..4c19e614 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/Makefile
> > @@ -18,9 +18,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_PMI)               += pmi.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_U3_DART)                += dart_iommu.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_MMIO_NVRAM)     += mmio_nvram.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_SOC)                += fsl_soc.o fsl_mpic_err.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_LBC)                += fsl_lbc.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_PCI)                += fsl_pci.o $(fsl-msi-obj-y)
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_PMC)                += fsl_pmc.o
> > -obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_LBC)                += fsl_lbc.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_GTM)                += fsl_gtm.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_85XX_CACHE_SRAM)    += fsl_85xx_l2ctlr.o 
> > fsl_85xx_cache_sram.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_SIMPLE_GPIO)    += simple_gpio.o
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_lbc.c 
> > b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_lbc.c index d631022..332d700 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_lbc.c
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_lbc.c
> > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> >  #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> >  #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
> > +#include <linux/syscore_ops.h>
> >  #include <asm/prom.h>
> >  #include <asm/fsl_lbc.h>
> >  
> > @@ -354,24 +355,42 @@ err:
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND
> >  
> >  /* save lbc registers */
> > -static int fsl_lbc_suspend(struct platform_device *pdev, 
> > pm_message_t
> > state)
> > +static int fsl_lbc_syscore_suspend(void)
> >  {
> > -     struct fsl_lbc_ctrl *ctrl = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev);
> > -     struct fsl_lbc_regs __iomem *lbc = ctrl->regs;
> > +     struct fsl_lbc_ctrl *ctrl;
> > +     struct fsl_lbc_regs __iomem *lbc;
> > +
> > +     ctrl = fsl_lbc_ctrl_dev;
> > +     if (!ctrl)
> > +             goto out;
> > +
> > +     lbc = ctrl->regs;
> > +     if (!lbc)
> > +             goto out;
> >  
> >       ctrl->saved_regs = kmalloc(sizeof(struct fsl_lbc_regs), GFP_KERNEL);
> >       if (!ctrl->saved_regs)
> >               return -ENOMEM;
> > [Dogra Raghav-B46184] This is the existing upstream code. Are you 
> > suggesting to modify the upstream code to take care of individual 
> > registers?
> 
> What specifically do you mean by "the upstream code"?  What other tree 
> are we talking about here?
> 
> -Scott
> 
> I meant that these two lines of code are not being added or modified 
> by this patch. They already exist in the upstream tree. Are you 
> suggesting I modify them as well?
> -Raghav

I have no idea which "two lines of code" you're talking about or how any comment I made applies to the above diff hunk.

OK, I looked at the original patch and I guess you're talking about the
_memcpy_fromio() that was *below* your comment?  Please configure your mailer to quote properly, and put your replies below what you're quoting.

Yes, I think that that usage of _memcpy_fromio() is bad and should be changed.

-Scott

Ok, I will take care that the replies are below what I am quoting in future. 
Can this patch be applied as it is then? The changes you are suggesting can come in a new patch.

-Raghav