From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965054AbaH0Tpt (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:45:49 -0400 Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:59523 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964894AbaH0Tpr (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Aug 2014 15:45:47 -0400 Message-ID: <53FE3551.2080806@ti.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:45:21 -0500 From: Nishanth Menon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Santosh Shilimkar , Tony Lindgren CC: Kevin Hilman , Tero Kristo , Paul Walmsley , , , , Keerthy , =?windows-1252?Q?Beno=EEt_Cousson?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] ARM: OMAP5 / DRA7: Enable CPU RET on suspend References: <1408716154-26101-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <1408716154-26101-8-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <7hbnr5dake.fsf@paris.lan> <53FE2BF2.3020006@ti.com> <20140827194156.GE16006@atomide.com> <53FE34D7.7040004@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <53FE34D7.7040004@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/27/2014 02:43 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > On Wednesday 27 August 2014 03:41 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> * Nishanth Menon [140827 12:05]: >>> On 08/27/2014 01:58 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >>>> Nishanth Menon writes: >>>> >>>>> From: Rajendra Nayak >>>>> >>>>> On OMAP5 / DRA7, prevent a CPU powerdomain OFF and resulting MPU OSWR >>>>> and instead attempt a CPU RET and side effect, MPU RET in suspend. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak >>>>> [nm@ti.com: update to do save_state only on DRA7] >>>>> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c | 4 ++++ >>>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-wakeupgen.c | 2 +- >>>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c | 9 +++++++-- >>>>> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c >>>>> index 207fce2..0d640eb 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c >>>>> @@ -242,6 +242,10 @@ int omap4_enter_lowpower(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int power_state) >>>>> save_state = 1; >>>>> break; >>>>> case PWRDM_POWER_RET: >>>>> + if (soc_is_omap54xx() || soc_is_dra7xx()) { >>>> >>>> Aren't we trying to get away from these soc_* checks for anything other >>>> than init code? >>> >>> I would expect that to take place in stages as part of which the next >>> level of cleanup is to move PRM into drivers. Currently our wakeupgen, >>> prm code does have quiet a few needs of dealing with soc_is checks >>> primarily from having to re-architect code in two different directions >>> - we want to move into just one direction eventually - to prm drivers >>> and as less code in mach-omap2 which is already in the works. >> >> Why don't you just set some flag at init time based on the >> soc_is check and then test that here? That limits the use of >> soc_is to init code only which makes it easier to phase it >> out completely eventually. >> > Indeed. Infact the version of the code I tried posting last year was > using a flag which was initialised during init. Same can be > done her. OK. will try something along that line in the next rev. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nm@ti.com (Nishanth Menon) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 14:45:21 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 07/10] ARM: OMAP5 / DRA7: Enable CPU RET on suspend In-Reply-To: <53FE34D7.7040004@ti.com> References: <1408716154-26101-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <1408716154-26101-8-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <7hbnr5dake.fsf@paris.lan> <53FE2BF2.3020006@ti.com> <20140827194156.GE16006@atomide.com> <53FE34D7.7040004@ti.com> Message-ID: <53FE3551.2080806@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 08/27/2014 02:43 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > On Wednesday 27 August 2014 03:41 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> * Nishanth Menon [140827 12:05]: >>> On 08/27/2014 01:58 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >>>> Nishanth Menon writes: >>>> >>>>> From: Rajendra Nayak >>>>> >>>>> On OMAP5 / DRA7, prevent a CPU powerdomain OFF and resulting MPU OSWR >>>>> and instead attempt a CPU RET and side effect, MPU RET in suspend. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak >>>>> [nm at ti.com: update to do save_state only on DRA7] >>>>> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c | 4 ++++ >>>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-wakeupgen.c | 2 +- >>>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c | 9 +++++++-- >>>>> 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c >>>>> index 207fce2..0d640eb 100644 >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c >>>>> @@ -242,6 +242,10 @@ int omap4_enter_lowpower(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int power_state) >>>>> save_state = 1; >>>>> break; >>>>> case PWRDM_POWER_RET: >>>>> + if (soc_is_omap54xx() || soc_is_dra7xx()) { >>>> >>>> Aren't we trying to get away from these soc_* checks for anything other >>>> than init code? >>> >>> I would expect that to take place in stages as part of which the next >>> level of cleanup is to move PRM into drivers. Currently our wakeupgen, >>> prm code does have quiet a few needs of dealing with soc_is checks >>> primarily from having to re-architect code in two different directions >>> - we want to move into just one direction eventually - to prm drivers >>> and as less code in mach-omap2 which is already in the works. >> >> Why don't you just set some flag at init time based on the >> soc_is check and then test that here? That limits the use of >> soc_is to init code only which makes it easier to phase it >> out completely eventually. >> > Indeed. Infact the version of the code I tried posting last year was > using a flag which was initialised during init. Same can be > done her. OK. will try something along that line in the next rev. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon