On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 16:05 +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Tero Kristo <t-kristo@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 00:55 -0500, Menon, Nishanth wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Yea, that would be an option. I think I'll add a flag for not losing
> > context ever.
> >
> You just access the module power domain from hwmod and then
> you already know whether it is AON or not. The flag idea
> was discussed in context of [1]. See if you can re-use that same idea.
That looks better still, thanks for the tip.
-Tero
--
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
