On 19/01/19 1:28 PM, J, KEERTHY wrote: > > > On 1/19/2019 12:42 PM, Andreas Kemnade wrote: >> On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 12:09:48 +0530 >> "J, KEERTHY" <j-keerthy@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 1/19/2019 1:18 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>> * Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [190118 19:42]: >>>>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 20:38:47 +0100 >>>>> Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> and there are quite few hwmods marked by this flag. >>>>> And then there are those clocks marked by this flags (on am33xx) which >>>>> do not have that autoidle feature at all, so the risk is not too high. >>>> >>>> Keerthy, can you please test this series on top of the >>>> related clock patches with your am335x PM test cases? >>> >>> Can you point me to the clock series that needs to be tested >>> along with this? >>> >> >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-clk/list/?series=66691 > > Thanks Andreas. I will test both series and get back. Tested for DS0 (deeps sleep 0 on am33/am43 boards) No issues seen with the current patch series on top of clock series. Tested-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@xxxxxx> > >> >> Regards, >> Andreas >>
