Hi Srinivas, Am Dienstag, den 25.02.2014, 09:08 +0000 schrieb srinivas kandagatla: > On 24/02/14 15:16, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > Hi Srinivas, > > > > Am Montag, den 24.02.2014, 14:03 +0000 schrieb srinivas kandagatla: > >> Thanks Philipp for your comments, > >> > >> On 24/02/14 10:33, Philipp Zabel wrote: > >>>>> Did Srini's explanations convinced you? > >>>>> > >>>>> If so, could you queue the series for v3.15? > >>> to be honest, I'm not comfortable with this explanation. If the > >>> "powerdown" bits only gate the clocks to those modules, calling it a > >>> reset control is clearly the wrong abstraction. If that is the case, > >>> couldn't you handle those bits via the clock framework? > >> I just had a re-look at the IPs specs for more information on where > >> these power-down signals are actually terminating on the IP side. > >> > >> For example: ST-Synopsis Ethernet GMAC IP has two pins > >> power_down_req[IN] and power_down_ack[OUT]. power_down_req is used by > >> the software to either put the IP in powerdown or bring it out of > >> powerdown state. > > > > Now I'm a bit confused. There is no mention of GMAC in your patches, > > and for ETH[01] they contain only the SOFTRESET bits. I have no issue > > with the SOFTRESETs. > Yes, GMAC was a bad example indeed. However this same logic applies to > the USB IP as well. > > GMAC power-down-reset can be added to the power-down-reset list for > consistency. > > We did not define the power-down-reset for GMAC because the reset state > of GMAC will not be in power down. softreset should be enough to bring > the IP in to a usable state. So the software never drives the power > down-request but instead uses softreset in this particular case. > > > > >> The IP itself drives power_down_ack to indicate when the power down > >> request is successfully finished. For power_down/power_up request the IP > >> will change the internal state accordingly including powering up/down > >> its internal blocks and/or clock gating. > >> > >>> If on the other hand these powerdown bits also trigger reset machinery, > >>> such that asserting and deasserting that bit will change the module's > >>> internal state, I could be convinced to queue them like this. > >> This is true with ST IPs, these lines change the state of the IP as > >> described above. Reset framework seems to fits in very well with this > >> behavior rather than power-domains or clock framework. > > > > If you put the IP in power down when it is idle, and then power it up > > again, will the IP registers have kept their previous state? > No, the context is lost, the IP needs re-initialization. alright then, I'll add them to the queue. thanks Philipp -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
