HI Tony, On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> * Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [101118 10:06]: >>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> About the DPLL lock: >>> 1) wait_sdrc_ok is only called when back from the non-OFF modes, >>> 2) I checked that when running wait_sdrc_ok the CORE is already out of >>> idle and the DPLL is already locked. Note: l-o code has no support for >>> the voltages OFF and the external clocks OFF. >>> >>> What to conclude from 1) and 2)? In my test setup ot looks like >>> wait_sdrc_ok is of no use, but I agree this a premature conclusion. >> >> Yeah we should figure out in which cases wait_sdrc_ok is needed. >> >> BTW, are you sure you're hitting core idle in your tests? > Yes it is OK from the console messages and the counters values in > /debug/pm_debug/count. > > Let me confirm asap with the PRCM registers dump. Here is what I experimented: 1) added a cache flush (v7_flush_kern_cache_all) just before WFI, in all cases, 2) checked the real state entered in low power mode from the console messages, the output of /debug/pm_debug/count and PRCM registers dump 2) is OK, which means that the RET and OFF modes are correctly hit. Can I conclude from 1) that the wake-up code is not running from the cache in RETention? Thanks, Jean > >> >> Regards, >> >> Tony >> > > Thanks, > Jean > >> > -- 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
