On 08/27/2014 02:43 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > On Wednesday 27 August 2014 03:41 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> * Nishanth Menon <[email protected]> [140827 12:05]: >>> On 08/27/2014 01:58 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >>>> Nishanth Menon <[email protected]> writes: >>>> >>>>> From: Rajendra Nayak <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> 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 <[email protected]> >>>>> [[email protected]: update to do save_state only on DRA7] >>>>> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <[email protected]> >>>>> --- >>>>> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
