> -----Original Message----- > From: Tero.Kristo@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:Tero.Kristo@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 4:23 AM > To: girishsg@xxxxxx; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [PATCH 01/17] PM: fix suspend control for IVA2 > > > >Agree, IVA2 pwrdm is handled autonomously by bridge. I think > >this needs some additional change to remove all the redundant > >configuration of iva pwdm. There are some inconsistencies like, > > - Say enable_off_mode is disabled. Before doing system > >wide suspend if DSP hibernates then IVA2 will be put to OFF. In that > >case we have IVA2 going to OFF and other domains in RET. This > >might not be an issue, but it's bad from sytem PM framework integrity > >perspective. > > This is an issue with bridge driver, and I am not sure how this should be fixed. Currently bridge > driver does not care whether off mode is enabled or not. I have seen bridge considering enable_off_mode flag in suspend/resume path. But while hibernation (idle timeout) it goes to OFF, irrespective of the OFF flag. > > > - enable_off_mode->omap3_pm_off_mode_enable will also > >touch IVA2 power domain next state. This we don't want to do if dsp > >bridge is already taking care of IVA2. > > > >IMO, we need to have some mechanism wherein if bridge PM takes > >care of IVA then PM framework should not configure the IVA > >powerstate. It should only do if bridge PM is disabled. > > Should we have a Kconfig option for this? Like CONFIG_OMAP3_BRIDGE_PM, and disable all iva2 controls > from pm34xx.c if it is enabled? Otherwise control IVA2 as currently done. Yes, this looks ok to me. -Girish -- 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
