Hi Tony,
Am Tue, 28 Nov 2023 12:04:09 +0200
schrieb Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > hmm, it is about this I think:
> >
> > timer1_target: target-module@8000 { /* 0x4a318000, ap 9
> > 1c.0 */ compatible = "ti,sysc-omap2-timer", "ti,sysc";
> >
> > but I see no ti,no-reset-on-init or ti,no-idle as checked by
> > sysc_check_active_timer(). It is a bit strange. Well, we have some
> > alwon below.
> > It sysc-omap2-timer here right instead of sysc-omap4-timer?
>
> For timers in the wkup domain yes they are "ti,sysc-omap2-timer",
> that's typically timer1 and possibly timer2. On some devies also
> possibly timer12.
>
ok, then at least omap2 vs. omap4 timer is no problem. I will check what
happens in check_active_timer.
The background of all this is that I am scrutinizing everything
in that area due to my bt200 mainline spl xs. ancient xloader
trouble. I think now with my success in GPS I will have enough mental
power to start it doing something there again.
> > > Maybe we should not show the error for timers, or change it to
> > > dev_info if EBUSY and timer?
> > >
> > Well, I am not sure yet whether I understand that
> > -ENXIO vs. -EBUSY business there fully.
> > I want to really have a checkmark behind that issue in my head...
>
> Seems we should change it to dev_info saying something like "timer
> already in use as a system timer".
Yes, if the cause of -EBUSY is really an active timer.
Regards,
Andreas
