On 11:13-20130302, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Friday 01 March 2013 11:13 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 17:40-20130301, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm_omap4plus.c
> >> similarity index 74%
[..]
> >> mpuss_clkdm = clkdm_lookup("mpuss_clkdm");
> >> emif_clkdm = clkdm_lookup("l3_emif_clkdm");
> >> l3_1_clkdm = clkdm_lookup("l3_1_clkdm");
> >> l3_2_clkdm = clkdm_lookup("l3_2_clkdm");
> >> + l4_per_clkdm = clkdm_lookup("l4_per_clkdm");
> >> + l4wkup = clkdm_lookup("l4_wkup_clkdm");
> > These static dependencies now seems added for OMAP4?
> > Sounds like a separate patch as it is not exactly what $subject claims.
> >> ducati_clkdm = clkdm_lookup("ducati_clkdm");
> These are accidently added. I have removed these two in another series.
> Will remove this one from the patch.
Thanks.
>
> >> - if ((!mpuss_clkdm) || (!emif_clkdm) || (!l3_1_clkdm) ||
> >> - (!l3_2_clkdm) || (!ducati_clkdm))
> >> - goto err2;
> >> + if ((!mpuss_clkdm) || (!emif_clkdm) || (!l3_1_clkdm) || (!l4wkup) ||
> >> + (!l3_2_clkdm) || (!ducati_clkdm) || (!l4_per_clkdm))
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> ret = clkdm_add_wkdep(mpuss_clkdm, emif_clkdm);
> >> ret |= clkdm_add_wkdep(mpuss_clkdm, l3_1_clkdm);
> >> ret |= clkdm_add_wkdep(mpuss_clkdm, l3_2_clkdm);
> >> + ret |= clkdm_add_wkdep(mpuss_clkdm, l4_per_clkdm);
> >> + ret |= clkdm_add_wkdep(mpuss_clkdm, l4wkup);
> >> ret |= clkdm_add_wkdep(ducati_clkdm, l3_1_clkdm);
> >> ret |= clkdm_add_wkdep(ducati_clkdm, l3_2_clkdm);
> >> if (ret) {
> >> pr_err("Failed to add MPUSS -> L3/EMIF/L4PER, DUCATI -> L3 wakeup dependency\n");
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return ret;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/**
> >> + * omap4_pm_init - Init routine for OMAP4+ devices
> >> + *
> >> + * Initializes all powerdomain and clockdomain target states
> >> + * and all PRCM settings.
> >> + */
> >> +int __init omap4_pm_init(void)
> > could we rename it as omap4plus_pm_init while we are at it?
> > This will help differentiate at least functions which are omap4 only and
> > ones which we reuse for omap4plus?
> Not needed. That way we have to rename all our omap2_* varients to
> omap2plus. omap4_* is assumed to be omap4 and onwards just like
> omap2_*
hmm true.. :(
>
> >> +{
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + if (omap_rev() == OMAP4430_REV_ES1_0) {
> > we have ID detection for OMAP5430_REV_ES1_0 in arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> > However, we do not support PM, so might as well use it to skip init?
> Well the plan is to remove OMAP5 ES1.0 completely so no need to add
> more checks. As already mentioned ES1.0 is not going to be supported
> in mainline kernel.
OK.
--
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
