Hi Jouni,
On Fri, 7 Nov 2008, Högander Jouni wrote:
> What do you Paul think about patch below:
I'm okay with it, but one potential problem: won't this prevent the chip
from entering retention, since SGX will be set to ON?
Anyway, if you agree this is a problem, what do you think about adding a
powerdomain flag that indicates that the powerdomain next power state
should be set to OFF on initialization, and then testing that in
set_pwrdm_state() ?
- Paul
> From: Jouni Hogander <jouni.hogander@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 16:50:51 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] OMAP3: PM: Check that wanted state is supported by pwrdm in pwrdms_setup
>
> Check that wanted sleep state is supported by powerdomain. If it is
> not supported, then use next highest supported state.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jouni Hogander <jouni.hogander@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c
> index da098d2..d9959a8 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c
> @@ -515,6 +515,7 @@ static void __init prcm_setup_regs(void)
> static int __init pwrdms_setup(struct powerdomain *pwrdm)
> {
> struct power_state *pwrst;
> + u32 next_state = PWRDM_POWER_RET;
>
> if (!pwrdm->pwrsts)
> return 0;
> @@ -523,12 +524,20 @@ static int __init pwrdms_setup(struct powerdomain *pwrdm)
> if (!pwrst)
> return -ENOMEM;
> pwrst->pwrdm = pwrdm;
> - pwrst->next_state = PWRDM_POWER_RET;
> list_add(&pwrst->node, &pwrst_list);
>
> if (pwrdm_has_hdwr_sar(pwrdm))
> pwrdm_enable_hdwr_sar(pwrdm);
>
> + while (!(pwrdm->pwrsts & (1 << next_state))) {
> + if (next_state > PWRDM_POWER_ON) {
> + next_state = pwrdm_read_next_pwrst(pwrst->pwrdm);
> + break;
> + }
> + next_state++;
> + }
> + pwrst->next_state = next_state;
> +
> return set_pwrdm_state(pwrst->pwrdm, pwrst->next_state);
> }
>
> --
> 1.6.0.1
>
>
- Paul
