"Bedia, Vaibhav" <vaibhav.bedia@xxxxxx> writes:
> 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?
The reason it is there is because that function is called from an
initcall. By default, the kernel builds in support for OMAP2/3/4, so
that initcall will get called on every SoC. Since it should only happen
for OMAP3, the cpu_is_ check is used.
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
