Hi Kevin,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 06:49:52, Hilman, Kevin wrote:
[...]
> >
> > 1. IO and wakeup events are not supported on AM33XX. Since cpu_is_34xx()
> > holds true for AM33XX I ended up adding a !cpu_is_am33xx() check in
> > omap3xxx_prcm_init() to bypass the chain handler registration.
>
> > Without such a check we were seeing a crash in USB since USB_CLKCTRL on
> > AM33XX just happens to be at the IRQENABLE_MPU_OFFSET of OMAP3.
> > Hope such cpu_is_*() checks are acceptable.
>
> We try to avoid them, especially when we already have existing feature
> flag for IO wakeups.
>
> Does something like (completely untested) patch below work for you?
>
> Of course, that implies that that feature flag is initialized correctly
> for AM33xx.
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm2xxx_3xxx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm2xxx_3xxx.c
> index c1c4d86..87451d9 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm2xxx_3xxx.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm2xxx_3xxx.c
> @@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ void omap3xxx_prm_restore_irqen(u32 *saved_mask)
>
> static int __init omap3xxx_prcm_init(void)
> {
> - if (cpu_is_omap34xx())
> + if (cpu_is_omap34xx() && omap3_has_io_wakeup())
> return omap_prcm_register_chain_handler(&omap3_prcm_irq_setup);
> return 0;
> }
>
I'll try this out once we have feature flag initialized on AM33xx.
Can the cpu_is_omap34xx() check be completely dropped in that case?
Or is there some other reason for retaining it?
I guess we'll still need a way to avoid the error message from mux.c
Regards,
Vaibhav
--
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
