RE: [PATCH 7/8] : Hwmod api changes

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

 



(cc Benoît)

On Mon, 9 Aug 2010, Nayak, Rajendra wrote:

> Does it make sense for the framework itself to enable wakeup
> for all devices when the slave port is programmed to be in
> Smartidle

It seems to me that they are separate mechanisms?  If a module is 
programmed for slave smart-idle, then the module prevents the PRCM from 
shutting off the module clock(s) until the module is not busy.  This seems 
distinct from ENAWAKEUP, which I thought simply controlled whether the 
module would assert the SWakeup signal to the PRCM when an external wakeup 
condition occurred for that module.  Is that an accurate summary?  

> instead of exposing 2 more omap device level api;s to the drivers?

Something like this probably needs to be exposed to core code that would 
also set/clear PM_WKEN_* for the appropriate processor module.  Right now 
we just set a bunch of these bits directly in pmXXXX.c, and that needs to 
change.

The other issue is that I suspct the module needs to be enabled in order 
for SYSCONFIG writes to succeed; right now the underlying hwmod code does 
not appear to enforce this :-(

But I don't see why drivers would need to call these functions directly.  
Hema, was that your intention?  If so, you could you please explain the 
use case?

> I have a patch for this and can post it for review in case you
> feel it makes sense.


- Paul

[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