RE: [PATCH 10/13 v3] OMAP: GPIO: Add gpio dev_attr and correct clks in OMAP4 hwmod struct

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 10:13 PM
> To: Varadarajan, Charulatha
> Cc: Cousson, Benoit; david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
> broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
> paul@xxxxxxxxx; Nayak, Rajendra; tony@xxxxxxxxxxx; Basak, Partha
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13 v3] OMAP: GPIO: Add gpio dev_attr 
> and correct clks in OMAP4 hwmod struct
> 
> "Varadarajan, Charulatha" <charu@xxxxxx> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> 
> >> So please, don't do that.
> >> 
> >> BTW, you didn't answer the first answer, do you really need that?
> >> 
> > It is used in save/restore context which would be called
> > from sram_idle path.
> 
> Cleaning this up should be considered instead of keeping around the
> bank count.
> 
> The save/restore should be done per-bank whenever the bank usage count
> goes to zero (or changes from zero.)

When a GPIO is acquired in a particular gpio bank, the gpio bank can still
go to idle if it is called by omap_sram_idle(). In such a case, restore
context will be called even when bank count is not 0.

> 
> If you don't want to address that cleanup in this series, add it to
> the TODO list for the cleanups and use the current variable, but it's
> value should be set when iterating over the number of hwmods as
> suggested by Benoit.

Okay. Will add these changes in my next version of patchset. 

> 
> Kevin
> 

>>>>>
>>>>>> +	.gpio_bank_bits = 32,
>>>>>> +	.dbck_flag = true,
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>
>>>>> Since this structure is the same than OMAP3, you should maybe consider
>>>>> sharing it.
>>>>
>>>> They are in different _data.c files. I feel that it will be good if they are
>>> kept decoupled as we need not have to mix up different SoC data. Here it's only a
>>> coincidence that OMAP3 and OMAP4 have same data
>>>
>>> No it is not a coincidence, it is because we are re-using the same IP
>>> implementation. In that case, it is not a big deal, but you should try
>>> to reuse as most as you can already existing data.
>>
>> They are in two different omap_hwmod_xxxx_data.c files. Is there a way to share this data?

> You can use omap_hwmod_common_data.c if you want.

It is common only for OMAP3/4 and not for OMAP2. But, omap_hwmod_common_data.c is common
for all OMAP2PLUS. Hence will maintain dev_attr for OMAP3&4 in their respective
hwmod database files.

> Benoit--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Arm (vger)]     [ARM Kernel]     [ARM MSM]     [Linux Tegra]     [Linux WPAN Networking]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Maemo Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux