[Manually reformatted your email so I can reply to it sensibly - please don't make me have to do this again, next time I'll ignore your message as it's too much effort, thanks]
On Sun, Apr 03, 2016 at 09:23:52AM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > Hi, > > This series tries to revive the many series trying to achieve the same > thing. > > I've tried numerous approaches and while using the kernel module loader > is actually quite convenient from a relocation point of view it is quite > overkill and also it is quite often too late as a lot of the arch > specific PM code assume that it is running at boot time, befor having > access to any filesystem. > > I've chosen to be less generic than what Russ did and only handle ARM. > I reused the API he defined but I actually went closer to his first > implementation by compiling and embedding a real PIE that doesn't > actually need relocations (gcc seems to be better at it thanks to ASLR). > > In this series, I'm also converting the AT91 suspend code to use that > infrastructure as it is quite simple but I also toyed with more complex > functions. > > The current limitation is that is doesn't actually tries to handle big > endian and I didn't test thumb (and this will probably require more work > to get that working reliably). > > Also, to be more useful prppoer handling of a stack has to be added > (this is not too difficult and is planned) and will be enough to get > rk3288 suspend/resume and DDR timing changes working. Provided there is no linking back to the kernel image (which is enforced by the --no-undefined flag), this at first glance looks okay, but what is the motivation behind this change? Just because there's "many series trying to do this" isn't really a justification or a reason why we should include this in the mainline kernel. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.
