Hi Paul, On 07/16/2012 01:38 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Jon Hunter wrote: > >> Yes I see that makes sense. However, patch #7 has already changed the >> mapping of the flags. I had intended that patch #7 and #8 would be >> applied together. However, I could see that patch #7 can be taken just >> to eliminate using the SW_SLEEP state. So basically, what I am saying is >> does patch #7 have any value without #8? > > Certainly not as much value as it had before. But my understanding, which > is possibly incorrect, matches what you wrote in patch #7's description: > > "For OMAP4 devices, SW_SLEEP is equivalent to HW_AUTO and NO_SLEEP is > equivalent to SW_WKUP. The only difference between HW_AUTO and SW_SLEEP > for OMAP4 devices is that the PRM_IRQSTATUS_MPU.TRANSITION_ST interrupt > status is set in case of SW_SLEEP transition, and not set in case of > HW_AUTO transition." > > We don't use that PRM_IRQSTATUS_MPU.TRANSITION_ST interrupt bit. So if > SW_SLEEP and HW_AUTO really have identical meanings otherwise, then I > suppose we might as well use the one that does what we need with no > extraneous side-effects? My recollection from a conversation with Benoît > a few months ago was that this was his view as well. Yes that is my understanding too. So from that standpoint it is fine to keep. However, I just wanted to make sure I understood your thinking here. >> That's fine with me. We can always workaround such issues by adding flags. >> >> I can give this a try this week and let you know how it goes. > > Okay, great. No rush on my account. Ok. I have a few items on my plate that keep preventing me from getting back to this, but what to get this done. Jon -- 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
