Am Mittwoch, den 05.03.2014, 19:05 +0800 schrieb Shawn Guo:
> On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 11:05:24AM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > > > +static int imx_gpc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct regulator *pu_reg;
> > > > + struct clk *clk;
> > > > + bool is_off;
> > > > + int ret, i;
> > > > +
> > > > + pu_reg = devm_regulator_get(&pdev->dev, "pu");
> > > > + if (IS_ERR(pu_reg)) {
> > > > + ret = PTR_ERR(pu_reg);
> > > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to get pu regulator: %d\n", ret);
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + /* The regulator is initially enabled */
> > > > + ret = regulator_enable(pu_reg);
> > > > + if (ret < 0) {
> > > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to enable pu regulator: %d\n", ret);
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > + }
> > > > + imx6q_pu_domain.base.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
> > >
> > > How does this work with !CONFIG_PM build?
> >
> > Since I removed the regulator-always-on property from the PU regulator
> > in the device tree, if CONFIG_PM is disabled, we have to request and
> > enable pu_reg here. Otherwise the regulator framework will helpfully
> > turn it off (imx6q-cpufreq never enables pu_reg).
> > With the PU regulator disabled, the system would hang as soon as the
> > CODA VPU or one of the Vivante GPU cores is accessed if !CONFIG_PM.
>
> Sorry, I should have been more specific. My question is how stuff like
> imx6q_pu_domain are available for !CONFIG_PM build, since they are only
> defined in #ifdef CONFIG_PM right above imx_gpc_probe().
Ouch, I misread the quoted context. Yes, everything starting from
imx6q_pu_domain.base.of_node = pdev->dev.of_node;
needs to be #ifdef CONFIG_PM.
regards
Philipp
--
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
