On Friday 30 March 2012 04:34 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Archit Taneja<a0393947@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2012 03:59 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2012 03:53 PM, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
On 3/30/2012 10:44 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2012 02:04 PM, Archit Taneja wrote:
On Friday 30 March 2012 02:01 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
+ Kevin
On Friday 30 March 2012 01:56 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 13:51 +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 1:37 PM, Tomi
Valkeinen<tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
I had a general PRCM question regarding this. If an initiator is disabled
(i.e, clocks are OFF and Power state is OFF), then would the PRCM even care
to look at the IdleAck/Mstandby signal of that initiator? Or in other words,
look at what the initiator had programmed in it's SYSCONFIG register. If it
does consider them, it seems like that's bad HW design!
If a PD 9powerdomain) is already in OFF state, that means all the initiators in
that PD already has standby asserted. The modules in that
PD also have transitioned.
Ah, so if DSS was configured as Nostandby, and if we try to disable DSS,
it would never transition to OFF, and hence never get disabled
correctly, hence giving trouble to PRCM.
So just before disabling DSS, we would need to put it to Force standby,
and then try to cut the clocks and change the power state. Is this
correct? If so, then it's equally messy as the suggested workaround :)
Archit
So PRCM won't poke that PD initiators/modules because it has
already have a green signal for power transitions. At least that is
what my understanding from the OMAP PRCM specs.
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
