(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
