On 08/06/2013 03:41 AM, Joseph Lo wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 01:48 +0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 08/05/2013 05:21 AM, Joseph Lo wrote:
>>> The LP1 suspending mode on Tegra means CPU rail off, devices and PLLs are
>>> clock gated and SDRAM in self-refresh mode. That means the low level LP1
>>> suspending and resuming code couldn't be run on DRAM and the CPU must
>>> switch to the always on clock domain (a.k.a. CLK_M 12MHz oscillator). And
>>> the system clock (SCLK) would be switched to CLK_S, a 32KHz oscillator.
>>> The LP1 low level handling code need to be moved to IRAM area first. And
>>> marking the LP1 mask for indicating the Tegra device is in LP1. The CPU
>>> power timer needs to be re-calculated based on 32KHz that was originally
>>> based on PCLK.
>>>
>>> When resuming from LP1, the LP1 reset handler will resume PLLs and then
>>> put DRAM to normal mode. Then jumping to the "tegra_resume" that will
>>> restore full context before back to kernel. The "tegra_resume" handler
>>> was expected to be found in PMC_SCRATCH41 register.
>>>
>>> This is common LP1 procedures for Tegra, so we do these jobs mainly in
>>> this patch:
>>> * moving LP1 low level handling code to IRAM
>>> * marking LP1 mask
>>> * copying the physical address of "tegra_resume" to PMC_SCRATCH41
>>> * re-calculate the CPU power timer based on 32KHz
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/pm.c
>>> @@ -174,14 +181,75 @@ enum tegra_suspend_mode tegra_pm_validate_suspend_mode(
>>> enum tegra_suspend_mode mode)
>>> {
>>> /*
>>> - * The Tegra devices only support suspending to LP2 currently.
>>> + * The Tegra devices support suspending to LP1 or lower currently.
>>> */
>>> - if (mode > TEGRA_SUSPEND_LP2)
>>> - return TEGRA_SUSPEND_LP2;
>>> + if (mode > TEGRA_SUSPEND_LP1)
>>> + return TEGRA_SUSPEND_LP1;
>>>
>>> return mode;
>>> }
>>
>> I think that change needs to happen after patch 7. At this point in the
>> series, LP1 doesn't work on any chip. After patch 7, it will work on all
>> chips.
>
> This code is safe here. Because we have some protection code.
...
> We have the function (tegra_lp1_iram_hook and tegra_sleep_core_init) to
> check if the system didn't support LP1 yet, then it will fall back to
> LP2. I verified this too.
Ah yes, that looks fine. Thanks very much for the explanation.
>> Note: You must assume that the DT changes are all checked in before any
>> of the code changes, so the code needs to work correctly even if the DT
>> contains the data that allows usage of LP1 before the driver actually
>> implements LP1.
>
> So should I still move them to the last patch?
No, I think given the check in tegra_lp1_iram_hook, everything will work
fine no matter which order the DT and code changes are applied.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
