* Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> [190121 07:13]: > On 18/01/2019 21:45, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [190118 19:39]: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:36:30 -0800 > > > Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > til the next workaround. > > > > > > > > > That flags also causes the iclk being enabled/disabled > > > > > manually. > > > > > > > > Yes but SWSUP_IDLE for the interface clock to me currently > > > > just means: > > > > > > > > "manually enable and disable ocp interface clock" > > > > > > > well, if we want to manually disable it and not automatically, > > > we have to disable autoidle or it will be automatically disabled. > > > > > > Disabling it manually when it is already auto-disabled (by autoidle) is > > > just practically a no-op towards the clock. > > > > OK I buy that :) It should be probably added to the patch > > description to make it clear what it changes. > > > > Tero, any comments on this change? > > Well, seeing the flag is pretty much only used for a handful of hwmods > nowadays, it should be fine. OMAP3 PM should be tested with this change > though, as there are couple of hwmods impacted on that platform. I wonder > what happens to cpuidle when display is active... OK so that's a good test case. AFAIK, we should have DSS idle and have the SoC hit at least core retention with DSI command mode displays. I don't know if this patch would block DSS autoidle then or not.. I'm guessing 80% chance that we still need DSS hit runtime suspend to enter SoC idle states meaning this patch would not affect it :) > > > > and with your changes it becomes: > > > > > > > > "manually enable and disable ocp interface clock and block > > > > autoidle while in use". > > > > > > > > So aren't we now changing the way things behave in general > > > > for SWSUP_IDLE? > > > > > > > Yes, we are, so proper testing is needed. But If I read those comments > > > it was always intended this way but not fully implemented because it > > > appeared to be more work like needing a usecounter (which my patchset > > > also adds) for that autoidle flag. > > > > OK yeah the use count seems necessary. I'll test here > > with my PM use cases. Regards, Tony
