On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 01:33:46, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hi > > On Thu, 7 Jun 2012, Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote: > > > I couldn't finish my testing today, got into continuous meetings. > > No worries, I understand. > > > Tomorrow, I will test it and update you on this. > > That would be great. > > I took a look at SPRUH73F and sure enough, at least one module (CONTROL) > doesn't support smart-idle -- per Table 14-217 "CONTROL Register Field > Descriptions". I'd guess that the PRCM won't idle-req this IP block until > the kernel is not running, so we might be able to get away with the > existing approach; but the TRM also says: > > "By definition, initiator may generate read/write transaction as long as > it is out of IDLE state." > > Which pretty much matches my understanding too of the implicit interface > contract here. > > So I think we'd better go back to the flag approach as implemented in this > patch: > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg176836.html > > The WBU 32k sync timer's behavior is what relies on quirks of the > integration that are hard to identify via other means, so it seems to be > safest to tag it explicitly. > Paul, I tested it on AM335x platform just now, it booted up to the Linux prompt, but I am sure it is going to impact low power state usecases on AM33xx. So, I also feel that, flag based approach should be used here. Thanks, 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
