On 2019-09-20 01:30, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2019-09-19 11:54:27)
On 2019-09-19 08:48, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> On 2019-09-19 05:55, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>> In the transition to this new design we lost the ability to
>> enable/disable the safe toggle per board, which according to Vivek
>> would result in some issue with Cheza.
>>
>> Can you confirm that this is okay? (Or introduce the DT property for
>> enabling the safe_toggle logic?)
>>
>
> Hmm, I don't remember Vivek telling about any issue on Cheza because
> of this logic.
> But I will test this on Cheza and let you know.
>
I tested this on Cheza and no perf degradation nor any other issue is
seen
atleast openly, although I see this below stack dump always with
cant_sleep change added.
The usage of cant_sleep() here is wrong then, and the comment should be
removed from the scm API as well because it looks like it's perfectly
OK
to call the function from a context that can sleep.
Looking more into this downstream, it says this *can be called in atomic
context*
and not *should be called only in atomic context*. So will remove
cant_sleep and
modify the comment accordingly.
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a
member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
