On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:47:04AM -0700, Russ Dill wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > So this is done from cpuidle rather than system suspend. > >> It is done for system suspend. It isn't possible to do this in a >> cpuidle use case as the memory controller would need to come out of >> idle automatically to service DMA requests. > > OK, so it's all part of the core power down sequence for the SoC? I'm > not sure that makes a big difference but it at least means that there > are fewer runtime interactions to worry about. Well, core suspend sequence for the SoC. >> > I mean describe the intended sequence of events in the system rather >> > than the raw register commands to accomplish them. > >> I'm still not sure what you mean. > > Say "set voltage X" or even "regulator X supplies Y" not "send this > bytestream to the device". That's already known at the SoC level, "set the vdd core regulator to 0.95V". What isn't known is how to do that for each board. > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
