On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 01:04:04 -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> [100112 09:31]: > > Alexander Shishkin had written, on 01/12/2010 11:30 AM, the following: > > >On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:13:13 -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > >>Alexander Shishkin had written, on 01/12/2010 11:04 AM, the following: > > > > >>>diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/sleep34xx.S b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/sleep34xx.S > > >>>index 69521be..0a5ec86 100644 > > >>>--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/sleep34xx.S > > >>>+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/sleep34xx.S > > [...] > > >>> /* Store current cpsr*/ > > >>> mrs r2, cpsr > > >>> stmia r8!, {r2} > > >>>@@ -520,6 +616,7 @@ clean_caches: > > >>> cmp r9, #1 /* Check whether L2 inval is required or not*/ > > >>> bne skip_l2_inval > > >>>clean_l2: > > >>>+#if 0 > > >>my aversion to #if 0 kicks in here :(.. do we have an alternative > > >>like using the CONFIG_ENABLE_OFF_MODE_JTAG_ETM_DEBUG or something > > >>else? > > > > > >Fair enough. I could replace it with "#if !defined(...)" as the first > > >thing that comes to mind. This way it will only take disabling the > > >config option to catch any possible regressions in between. Does this > > >sound reasonable? > > sounds ok to me.. unless folks have ideas coz of clean_l2 label.. > > more comments might be useful before a rev2 of the patch.. > > The best solution would be to be able to toggle this via sysfs or > debugfs by swapping the sram code for idle loop when JTAG support > is needed. Well, if you say, compile the ETM driver in, this will be needed most of the time. Regards, -- Alex -- 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