On 2013-12-13 05:27, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Tony, > > On Thursday 12 December 2013 21:59:13 Tony Lindgren wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 10:38:34AM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >>> On 2013-12-12 01:44, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>> >>> So, are they independent? I don't know =). I think they lean on the >>> independent side. dss_core is always needed for the submodules to work, >>> but for example DSI could be used without DISPC, using system DMA to >>> transfer data from memory to DSI. Not a very useful thing to do, but >>> still, there are dedicated DMA channels for that. >> >> If they have separate hwmod entries, they should be considered separate >> independent devices for sure. >> >> To summarize, here are few reasons why they need to be treated as >> separate devices: > > Are you talking generally here, or about the DSS modules in particular ? > >> 1. The modules maybe clocked/powered/idled separately and can have their >> own idle configuration so they can do the hardware based idling >> separately. > > I don't think this applies to the DSS modules. The DSS submodules have their own SYSCONFIG register, and idle settings can be set per module. So I think they idle separately, even if they are in a common power domain. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
