* Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [101119 07:27]: > 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? Sounds pretty safe to me then, thanks for testing. Now we just have to find out in which cases wait_sdrc_ok is needed.. Tony -- 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
