On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 06/29/2012 11:27 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: >> + 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. > > I was wondering that too. I opted not to add a flag because there is > only one such power domain that needs it. > I agree with you. Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> -- 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
