+ Paul, Rajendra, On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 2:34 AM, Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@xxxxxx> wrote: > Note: Re-sending with updated kernel doc. > > The wake-up power domain is an alway-on power domain and so this power domain > does not have a power state status (PM_PWSTST_xxx) register that indicates the > current state. However, during the registering of the wake-up power domain the > state of the domain is queried by calling pwrdm_read_pwrst(). This actually > tries to read a register that does not exist and returns a value of 0 that > indicates that the current state is OFF. The OFF state count of the wake-up > power domain is then set to 1 and the current state to OFF. Both of which are > incorrect. > > To fix this, if a power domain only supports the ON state, do not attempt to > read the power state status register and simply return ON as the current power > state. > > This is based upon Tony's current linux-omap master branch. > > Testing: > - Boot tested on OMAP4460 panda. > - Boot tested on OMAP3430 beagle and validated CORE RET still working (using > Paul's 32k timer patch [1]). > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=134000053229888&w=2 > > Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@xxxxxx> > --- > arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c | 6 +++++- > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c > index eefe179..69b36e1 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/powerdomain.c > @@ -526,7 +526,8 @@ int pwrdm_read_next_pwrst(struct powerdomain *pwrdm) > * > * Return the powerdomain @pwrdm's current power state. Returns -EINVAL > * if the powerdomain pointer is null or returns the current power state > - * upon success. > + * upon success. Note that if the power domain only supports the ON state > + * then just return ON as the current state. > */ > int pwrdm_read_pwrst(struct powerdomain *pwrdm) > { > @@ -535,6 +536,9 @@ int pwrdm_read_pwrst(struct powerdomain *pwrdm) > if (!pwrdm) > return -EINVAL; > > + if (pwrdm->pwrsts == PWRSTS_ON) > + return PWRDM_POWER_ON; > + The patch as such is correct but just wondering whether we should have some flag rather than above check. 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
