On Thursday 15 September 2011 12:34 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Santosh <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> [110914 09:49]: >> On Wednesday 14 September 2011 10:48 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Santosh<santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> [110914 09:40]: >>>> On Wednesday 14 September 2011 10:38 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>> * Santosh<santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> [110914 09:16]: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the clarification. It seems to me the spec is most likely >>>>> wrong as we've had the GIC working for over two years now without >>>>> doing anything with the wakeup gen registers :) >>>>> >>>> It's working because CPU clockdomain are never put under HW >>>> supervised mode and they are kept in force wakeup. Clock-domain >>>> never idles on mainline code. PM series will put the clock-domains >>>> under HW supervison as needed to achieve any low power states and >>>> then all sorts of corner cases will come out. >>> >>> But again the wakeup gen triggers only do something when hitting >>> idle. There should be no use for them during runtime, right? >>> >> You missed my point in the description. Clockdomain inactive >> doesn't depend on idle or WFI execution. Under HW supervison >> CPU clock domain can get into inactive when CPU is stalled and >> waiting for a read response from slow interconnect. > > Ah OK. If it's needed during runtime too then that explains why > the registers need to be kept in sync. > >> One thing for sure. Designers has chosen a wrong name to this >> IP. Wakeugen apears like needed only for low power wakeup which >> not seems to be entirely correct as per specs > > Yes it's not obvious reading the TRM either. Maybe add some > comment about that to the patch? > You are right. Documentation isn't clear about this. Will add the above point in change log. btw, thanks for the good discussion on this topic. Regards Santosh -- 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
