On 04/08/2020 15:00:38+0000, claudiu.bez...@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
