Hi, On 08/11/2024 00:51, Andreas Kemnade wrote: > Despite CM_IDLEST1_CORE and CM_FCLKEN1_CORE behaving normal, > disabling SPI leads to messages like: > Powerdomain (core_pwrdm) didn't enter target state 0 > and according to /sys/kernel/debug/pm_debug/count off state is not > entered. That was not connected to SPI during the discussion > of disabling SPI. See: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-omap/20230122100852.32ae082c@aktux/ > > Fix excess DMA channel usage by disabling DMA only instead of disabling > the SPI modules, so powermanagement can da all its work. s/powermanagement/power management s/da/do > > Fixes: a622310f7f01 ("ARM: dts: gta04: fix excess dma channel usage") > CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap3-gta04.dtsi | 12 ++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap3-gta04.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap3-gta04.dtsi > index 3661340009e7a..11f8af34498b1 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap3-gta04.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap3-gta04.dtsi > @@ -612,19 +612,23 @@ &i2c3 { > }; > > &mcspi1 { > - status = "disabled"; But according to commit a622310f7f01 ("ARM: dts: gta04: fix excess dma channel usage"), these mcspi modules are not used. So it doesn't make sense to enable them even if it seems to solve the power management issue? Does bootloader leave the mcspi modules in a unwanted state? Would it make sense for the bus driver to explicitly turn off all modules? > + /delete-property/ dmas; > + /delete-property/ dma-names; > }; > > &mcspi2 { > - status = "disabled"; > + /delete-property/ dmas; > + /delete-property/ dma-names; > }; > > &mcspi3 { > - status = "disabled"; > + /delete-property/ dmas; > + /delete-property/ dma-names; > }; > > &mcspi4 { > - status = "disabled"; > + /delete-property/ dmas; > + /delete-property/ dma-names; > }; > > &usb_otg_hs { -- cheers, -roger
