On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh
<santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 4:58 AM, DebBarma, Tarun Kanti
> <tarun.kanti@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Santosh Shilimkar
>> <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 07 March 2012 12:16 PM, Tarun Kanti DebBarma wrote:
>>>> In omap_gpio_runtime_resume() the context restore should be independent
>>>> of bank->enabled_non_wakeup_gpios. This was preventing context restore
>>>> of GPIO lines which are not wakeup enabled.
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Govindraj Raja <govindraj.raja@xxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tarun Kanti DebBarma <tarun.kanti@xxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>>>> index 2e8e476..ccfbae0 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>>>> @@ -1227,7 +1227,7 @@ static int omap_gpio_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
>>>> __raw_writel(bank->context.risingdetect,
>>>> bank->base + bank->regs->risingdetect);
>>>>
>>>> - if (!bank->enabled_non_wakeup_gpios || !bank->workaround_enabled) {
>>>> + if (!bank->workaround_enabled) {
>>> This doesn't seem to be right.
>>> Don't you want to avoid GPIO restore for banks which are in
>>> always on domain. Infact the purpose of "enabled_non_wakeup_gpios"
>>> is exactly that ? Isn't it.
>>>
>>> What am I missing ?
>> The bank->enabled_non_wakeup_gpios is set whenever a gpio line is programmed
>> as edge trigger as shown below.
>> (This is not meant to distinguish between gpios in WKUP domain vs
>> those in PER domain).
>> The context restore should happen irrespective of whether the trigger
>> type is edge or level.
>> In fact context restore was not happening for a gpio line because of
>> this condition while
>> testing suspend/resume.
>>
>> [...]
>> if (trigger & IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH)
>> bank->enabled_non_wakeup_gpios |= gpio_bit;
>> else
>> bank->enabled_non_wakeup_gpios &= ~gpio_bit;
>> [...]
>
> Make sense now. Thanks for clarification Tarun.
> You can add mine..
> Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx>
Thanks.
I have missed removing the same change from omap_gpio_runtime_suspend().
@@ -1178,9 +1178,6 @@ static int omap_gpio_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
* non-wakeup GPIOs. Otherwise spurious IRQs will be
* generated. See OMAP2420 Errata item 1.101.
*/
- if (!(bank->enabled_non_wakeup_gpios))
- goto update_gpio_context_count;
-
FYI, I tested the change on OMAP5 code-base which did not have the above change.
Anyways, I have updated the change in:
git://gitorious.org/~tarunkanti/omap-sw-develoment/tarunkantis-linux-omap-dev
for_3.4/gpio_further_cleanup_fixes
--
Tarun
>
> 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
