On 16/03/17 09:59, Roger Quadros wrote: > Tony, > > On 14/03/17 17:48, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> * Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> [170313 04:55]: >> >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c >>> @@ -2149,7 +2149,7 @@ static int _idle(struct omap_hwmod *oh) >>> _idle_sysc(oh); >>> _del_initiator_dep(oh, mpu_oh); >>> >>> - if (oh->clkdm) >>> + if (oh->clkdm && !(oh->flags & HWMOD_CLKDM_NOAUTO)) >>> clkdm_deny_idle(oh->clkdm); >>> >>> if (oh->flags & HWMOD_BLOCK_WFI) >> >> Is this change to _idle() really needed? It seems that the >> clkdm_deny_idle() there is paired with the clkdm_allow_idle() >> later on in the same function? >> > > You are right. This change to _idle() is unnecessary. I'll send an update. > Now I remember why I put it there. When HWMOD_CLKDM_NOAUTO flag is set, _enable() does not call clkdm_allow_idle() so the call to clkdm_deny_idle() in _idle() would be redundant. I think we should keep the patch as it is. What do you say? -- cheers, -roger -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
