> > > > 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.w...@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 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
