defconfig: disable more useless crap
drivers: leds: Update TPS61310 flashlight driver

* HTC kernel package memul-3.4.0-gf8f27cb

Change-Id: Ia77b3d4a503b14492648af17184593b81824a6af
drivers: tfa9887: Update TFA9887 AMP driver

* HTC kernel package memul-3.4.0-ga072f6c

Change-Id: I26f92fb9243e25d21f8952936db42969cf7e13e0
usb: otg: Update HTC OTG stack

* HTC kernel package memul-3.4.0-g3ea4692

Change-Id: If6da0b10786da9920b17dea88887b4ab8c537b8d
power: qpnp-bms: Improve logic for storing FCC learnt data

BMS module supports 16 (8-bit) battery backed-up registers.
Make sure that while backing-up the new data, always replace
the oldest stored data.

CRs-Fixed: 730047
Change-Id: I5fc406ec24ce242b722926cc1096f7dcaf561656
Signed-off-by: Zhenhua Huang <zhenhuah@codeaurora.org>
build: Enable unsafe-math-optimizations

* If the selected floating-point hardware includes the NEON extension
  (e.g. -mfpu=‘neon’), note that floating-point operations are not
  generated by GCC's auto-vectorization pass unless
  -funsafe-math-optimizations is also specified. This is because NEON
  hardware does not fully implement the IEEE 754 standard for
  floating-point arithmetic (in particular denormal values are treated
  as zero), so the use of NEON instructions may lead to a loss of precision.

Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>
qcom: rpm-smd: Mask the interrupt before sending the sleep set.

Sending a sleep set would cause an SMD interrupt to fire. If the
interrupt was previously affine to a different CPU, it could cause a
premature wakeup of that CPU. Prevent this by masking the interrupt
before sending the sleep set.

Signed-off-by: Mahesh Sivasubramanian <msivasub@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Pranav Vashi <neobuddy89@gmail.com>
defconfig: update, disable RPM stats, re-enable other stuff
thermal: remove HTC remnants
drivers: cm3629: Update CM3629 sensor driver

* HTC kernel package memul-3.4.0-gf8f27cb

Change-Id: I87fa708a69c06df243b1745f02bed3cd8d262ac6
ARM: 8011/1: ARM hibernation / suspend-to-disk

Enable hibernation for ARM architectures and provide ARM
architecture specific calls used during hibernation.

The swsusp hibernation framework depends on the
platform first having functional suspend/resume.

Then, in order to enable hibernation on a given platform, a
platform_hibernation_ops structure may need to be registered with
the system in order to save/restore any SoC-specific / cpu specific
state needing (re)init over a suspend-to-disk/resume-from-disk cycle.

For example:

     - "secure" SoCs that have different sets of control registers
       and/or different CR reg access patterns.

     - SoCs with L2 caches as the activation sequence there is
       SoC-dependent; a full off-on cycle for L2 is not done
       by the hibernation support code.

     - SoCs requiring steps on wakeup _before_ the "generic" parts
       done by cpu_suspend / cpu_resume can work correctly.

     - SoCs having persistent state which is maintained during suspend
       and resume, but will be lost during the power off cycle after
       suspend-to-disk.

This is a rebase/rework of Frank Hofmann's v5 hibernation patchset.

Acked-by: Russ Dill <Russ.Dill@ti.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Signed-off-by: Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
[fixed duplicate virt_to_pfn() definition --rmk]
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/kernel/Makefile
	include/linux/suspend.h
ARM: 8165/1: alignment: don't break misaligned NEON load/store

The alignment fixup incorrectly decodes faulting ARM VLDn/VSTn
instructions (where the optional alignment hint is given but incorrect)
as LDR/STR, leading to register corruption. Detect these and correctly
treat them as unhandled, so that userspace gets the fault it expects.

Reported-by: Simon Hosie <simon.hosie@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@arm.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
crypto: add crypto_sha256_update function (missed earlier)
defconfig: enable NEON crypto
crypto: add crypto_[un]register_shashes for [un]registering multiple shash entries at once

Add crypto_[un]register_shashes() to allow simplifying init/exit code of shash
crypto modules that register multiple algorithms.

Signed-off-by: Jussi Kivilinna <jussi.kivilinna@mbnet.fi>
Signed-off-by: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
cpufreq: interactive: clean up unused options. This prevent users to be confused.

Signed-off-by: franciscofranco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>
ARM: 7493/1: use generic unaligned.h

This moves ARM over to the asm-generic/unaligned.h header. This has the
benefit of better code generated especially for ARMv7 on gcc 4.7+
compilers.

As Arnd Bergmann, points out: The asm-generic version uses the "struct"
version for native-endian unaligned access and the "byteshift" version
for the opposite endianess. The current ARM version however uses the
"byteshift" implementation for both.

Thanks to Nicolas Pitre for the excellent analysis:

Test case:

int foo (int *x) { return get_unaligned(x); }
long long bar (long long *x) { return get_unaligned(x); }

With the current ARM version:

foo:
	ldrb	r3, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B]
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B]
	ldrb	r2, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	mov	r3, r3, asl #16	@ tmp154, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B],
	ldrb	r0, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B]
	orr	r3, r3, r1, asl #8	@, tmp155, tmp154, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B],
	orr	r3, r3, r2	@ tmp157, tmp155, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	orr	r0, r3, r0, asl #24	@,, tmp157, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B],
	bx	lr	@

bar:
	stmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}	@,
	mov	r2, #0	@ tmp184,
	ldrb	r5, [r0, #6]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B]
	ldrb	r4, [r0, #5]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B]
	ldrb	ip, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B]
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #4]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B]
	mov	r5, r5, asl #16	@ tmp175, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 6B],
	ldrb	r7, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B]
	orr	r5, r5, r4, asl #8	@, tmp176, tmp175, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 5B],
	ldrb	r6, [r0, #7]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B]
	orr	r5, r5, r1	@ tmp178, tmp176, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 4B]
	ldrb	r4, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	mov	ip, ip, asl #16	@ tmp188, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 2B],
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B], MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B]
	orr	ip, ip, r7, asl #8	@, tmp189, tmp188, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 1B],
	orr	r3, r5, r6, asl #24	@,, tmp178, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 7B],
	orr	ip, ip, r4	@ tmp191, tmp189, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D)]
	orr	ip, ip, r1, asl #24	@, tmp194, tmp191, MEM[(const u8 *)x_1(D) + 3B],
	mov	r1, r3	@,
	orr	r0, r2, ip	@ tmp171, tmp184, tmp194
	ldmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}
	bx	lr

In both cases the code is slightly suboptimal.  One may wonder why
wasting r2 with the constant 0 in the second case for example.  And all
the mov's could be folded in subsequent orr's, etc.

Now with the asm-generic version:

foo:
	ldr	r0, [r0, #0]	@ unaligned	@,* x
	bx	lr	@

bar:
	mov	r3, r0	@ x, x
	ldr	r0, [r0, #0]	@ unaligned	@,* x
	ldr	r1, [r3, #4]	@ unaligned	@,
	bx	lr	@

This is way better of course, but only because this was compiled for
ARMv7. In this case the compiler knows that the hardware can do
unaligned word access.  This isn't that obvious for foo(), but if we
remove the get_unaligned() from bar as follows:

long long bar (long long *x) {return *x; }

then the resulting code is:

bar:
	ldmia	r0, {r0, r1}	@ x,,
	bx	lr	@

So this proves that the presumed aligned vs unaligned cases does have
influence on the instructions the compiler may use and that the above
unaligned code results are not just an accident.

Still... this isn't fully conclusive without at least looking at the
resulting assembly fron a pre ARMv6 compilation.  Let's see with an
ARMv5 target:

foo:
	ldrb	r3, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp139,* x
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp140,
	ldrb	r2, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp143,
	ldrb	r0, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp146,
	orr	r3, r3, r1, asl #8	@, tmp142, tmp139, tmp140,
	orr	r3, r3, r2, asl #16	@, tmp145, tmp142, tmp143,
	orr	r0, r3, r0, asl #24	@,, tmp145, tmp146,
	bx	lr	@

bar:
	stmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}	@,
	ldrb	r2, [r0, #0]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp139,* x
	ldrb	r7, [r0, #1]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp140,
	ldrb	r3, [r0, #4]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp149,
	ldrb	r6, [r0, #5]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp150,
	ldrb	r5, [r0, #2]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp143,
	ldrb	r4, [r0, #6]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp153,
	ldrb	r1, [r0, #7]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp156,
	ldrb	ip, [r0, #3]	@ zero_extendqisi2	@ tmp146,
	orr	r2, r2, r7, asl #8	@, tmp142, tmp139, tmp140,
	orr	r3, r3, r6, asl #8	@, tmp152, tmp149, tmp150,
	orr	r2, r2, r5, asl #16	@, tmp145, tmp142, tmp143,
	orr	r3, r3, r4, asl #16	@, tmp155, tmp152, tmp153,
	orr	r0, r2, ip, asl #24	@,, tmp145, tmp146,
	orr	r1, r3, r1, asl #24	@,, tmp155, tmp156,
	ldmfd	sp!, {r4, r5, r6, r7}
	bx	lr

Compared to the initial results, this is really nicely optimized and I
couldn't do much better if I were to hand code it myself.

Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
Reviewed-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
Tested-by: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: franciscofranco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>

Conflicts:
	arch/arm/include/asm/unaligned.h
tspp: update to kk_3.5
defconfig: enable BPF_JIT
ARM: 8135/1: Fix in-correct barrier usage in SWP{B} emulation

According to the ARM ARMv7, explicit barriers are necessary when using
synchronisation primitives such as SWP{B}. The use of these
instructions does not automatically imply a barrier and any ordering
requirements by the software must be explicitly expressed with the use
of suitable barriers.

Based on this, remove the barriers from SWP{B} emulation.

Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>