Todd, On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Todd Poynor <toddpoynor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:30:14AM +0200, jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: ... >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c >>> index 9af0847..63c3e7a 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c >>> @@ -108,6 +108,9 @@ static int _pwrdm_register(struct powerdomain *pwrdm) >>> pwrdm->state = pwrdm_read_pwrst(pwrdm); >>> pwrdm->state_counter[pwrdm->state] = 1; >>> >>> + /* Early init of the next power state */ >>> + pwrdm_set_next_pwrst(pwrdm, PWRDM_POWER_RET); >>> + >> >> Wanted to check that it's OK to initialize the next state of a power >> domain to RETENTION early in the boot sequence. I believe patches >> have been previously discussed that set the state to ON to ensure the >> domain doesn't go to a lower state, and possibly lose context, before >> the PM subsystem is setup to handle it? Not sure, thought maybe worth >> a doublecheck. > Indeed I need to check the behavior for OMAP3 & 4 which seem to > initialize the pwrdm states differently. > BTW the patch that inits all pwrdms to ON is not yet in l-o master > that is why I (lazily) submitted this one for now. Ok I will update the patch to make it compliant with [1]. v4 will include this change. Thanks, Jean [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=131052762623823&w=2 > >> >> >> Todd -- 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
