Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> writes:
> Vishwanath Sripathy had written, on 12/13/2010 08:58 AM, the following:
> [...]
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-
>>> omap2/pm34xx.c
>>> index ba3c0d6..da12a56 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c
>>> @@ -932,8 +932,15 @@ void omap3_pm_off_mode_enable(int enable)
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> list_for_each_entry(pwrst, &pwrst_list, node) {
>>> - pwrst->next_state = state;
>>> - omap_set_pwrdm_state(pwrst->pwrdm, state);
>>> + if (IS_PM34XX_ERRATUM(SDRC_WAKEUP_ERRATUM_i583)
>>> &&
>>> + pwrst->pwrdm == core_pwrdm) {
>>> + pwrst->next_state = PWRDM_POWER_RET;
>>> + pr_err("%s: cannot enable Core OFF due to
>> i583\n",
>>> + __func__);
>> You probably need to throw up this warning only if state
>> == PWRDM_POWER_OFF. Otherwise this code looks fine to me.
>
> Thanks for the review. added it. will post a v4 later today if no one
> cribs with this approach. I will retain the logic in sram_idle as well
> as a backup measure.
This logic doesn't belong in SRAM idle. To handle the idle case, you
should also disable the 'valid' bit for any C-state that has CORE off (I
think there's only one.)
Kevin
--
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
