On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2012-07-17 at 02:59 -0500, Menon, Nishanth wrote:
> > Couple of minor comments:
> > On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > /**
> > > + * _omap4_update_context_lost - increment hwmod context loss counter
> > > if
> > > + * hwmod context was lost, and clear hardware context loss reg
> > > + * @oh: hwmod to check for context loss
> > > + *
> > > + * If the PRCM indicates that the hwmod @oh lost context, increment
> > > + * our in-memory context loss counter, and clear the RM_*_CONTEXT
> > > + * bits. No return value.
> > > + */
> > > +static void _omap4_update_context_lost(struct omap_hwmod *oh)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 r;
> > > +
> > > + if (oh->prcm.omap4.context_offs == USHRT_MAX)
> > > + return;
> > would'nt it be better to return a dummy incremental counter instead of
> > returning no context loss (count = 0)?
>
> I guess you are right, this way we may have some extra context restores
> for modules which don't have context offs defined, rather than not
> restoring them at all. Only thing I can think might prevent this is if
> there are modules that never lose context but don't have context
> register? How about omap5+?
there has been an interesting debate ongoing with HWAUTO and context
loss count handling -> since we update only on _enable, this might
actually be interesting to consider:
enable
idle
un_idle (lost context)
read counter -> no update
Now to handle modules that never loose context - they have to be in
wakeup domain.. should we consider a flag for those? would'nt matter
o5 or not, context is still the same.. this issue could be resolved if
counter update is done even when a check is done.
> >
> > > +
> > > + r =
> > > omap4_prminst_read_inst_reg(oh->clkdm->pwrdm.ptr->prcm_partition,
> > > +
> > > oh->clkdm->pwrdm.ptr->prcm_offs,
> > > + oh->prcm.omap4.context_offs);
> > > +
> > > + if (!r)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + oh->prcm.omap4.context_lost_counter++;
> > need to be careful about counter overflow.
>
> Well, this code can't do much for that even if it overflows... the type
> for the context_lost_counter is unsigned though, maybe it should be
> expanded if you are worried...?
it can hit 0 with overflow(no context loss). that will not be good, right?
How about something like:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
index eac813a..5fb9572 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
@@ -1606,6 +1606,18 @@ static void _reconfigure_io_chain(void)
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&io_chain_lock, flags);
}
+static inline void _omap4_inc_context_loss(unsigned int *v)
+{
+
+ /*
+ * Context loss count has to be a non-negative value.
+ * Clear the sign bit to get a value range from 1 to
+ * INT_MAX.
+ */
+ *v = (*v + 1) & INT_MAX;
+ *v = *v ? *v : 1;
+}
+
/**
* _omap4_update_context_lost - increment hwmod context loss counter if
* hwmod context was lost, and clear hardware context loss reg
@@ -1629,7 +1641,7 @@ static void _omap4_update_context_lost(struct
omap_hwmod *oh)
if (!r)
return;
- oh->prcm.omap4.context_lost_counter++;
+ _omap4_inc_context_loss(&oh->prcm.omap4.context_lost_counter);
omap4_prminst_write_inst_reg(r, oh->clkdm->pwrdm.ptr->prcm_partition,
oh->clkdm->pwrdm.ptr->prcm_offs,
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
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
