Re: [RFC] OMAP3: CPUIDLE & PM: Modifications and fixes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello Jouni,

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Högander Jouni wrote:

> "ext Paul Walmsley" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Could you explain a little further why PER would have a wakeup dependency 
> > on CORE?  Is this something that we should only enable under certain 
> > conditions, e.g., latency requirements for a device in PER?
> 
> This is done to make sure we don't loose any gpio interrupts: GPIO
> wakeup/interrupt doesn't work for GPIOs in PER domain if PER is not
> active.

I'm probably misunderstanding something, but ... wouldn't it better to 
just keep PER powerdomain ON all the time when PER GPIOs are enabled for 
interrupts?  It seems possible for PER to go to retention or OFF even with 
the CORE wkdep in place, which would result in a period of time where the 
interrupts would be missed, no?

> >> 3. Deny hwsup mode before writing next pwrst state
> >
> > I missed this part of the patch - could you point me at that
> > section?
> 
> Patch changes code to use set_pwrdm_state from pm34xx.c instead of
> pwrdm_set_next_pwrst from powerdomain code. That function contains
> denying hwsup mode.

Ah, okay.


- Paul

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Arm (vger)]     [ARM Kernel]     [ARM MSM]     [Linux Tegra]     [Linux WPAN Networking]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Maemo Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux