On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:28:58 +0530
Shweta Gulati <shweta.gulati@xxxxxx> wrote:
> This patch is based on LO PM Branch and Smartreflex has been
> tested on OMAP3430 SDP, OMAP3630 SDP and boot tested on
> OMAP2430 SDP.
>
I saw this was working on N900 (kind of special instrumentation
setup) after enabling /sys/kernel/debug/voltage/[vdd_core |
vdd_mpu]/smartreflex/autocomp. Few comments below.
> @@ -269,6 +276,18 @@ int __init omap3_twl_init(void)
> omap3_core_volt_info.vp_vddmax = OMAP3630_VP2_VLIMITTO_VDDMAX;
> }
...
> + if (!twl_sr_enable_autoinit)
> + omap3_twl_set_sr_bit(true);
...
> +int __init omap3_twl_set_sr_bit(bool enable)
> +{
> + u8 temp;
> + int ret;
> + if (twl_sr_enable_autoinit)
> + pr_warning("%s: unexpected multiple calls\n", __func__);
> +
> + ret = twl_i2c_read_u8(TWL4030_MODULE_PM_RECEIVER, &temp,
> + TWL4030_DCDC_GLOBAL_CFG);
> + if (ret)
> + goto err;
> +
> + if (enable)
> + temp |= SMARTREFLEX_ENABLE;
> + else
> + temp &= ~SMARTREFLEX_ENABLE;
> +
> + ret = twl_i2c_write_u8(TWL4030_MODULE_PM_RECEIVER, temp,
> + TWL4030_DCDC_GLOBAL_CFG);
Would it make more sense to set only the flag here and do the register
writes when omap3_twl_init is executing? Then it's not so strict when
the board code calls this function.
> + if (!ret) {
> + twl_sr_enable_autoinit = true;
> + return 0;
Should this be twl_sr_enable_autoinit = enable (if going to do
register write here)?
--
Jarkko
--
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
