Re: [PATCH 05/12] arm: omap3: am35x: Add PWROFF feature

["Mark A. Greer" <mgreer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 02:07:13PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> "Mark A. Greer" <mgreer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 03:46:20PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> Hi Mark,
> >
> > Hi Kevin.
> >
> >> "Mark A. Greer" <mgreer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> 
> >> > From: "Mark A. Greer" <mgreer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> > Typical OMAP3 SoCs have four power domain states: ON,
> >> > INACTIVE, RETENTION, and OFF.  The am35x family of SoCs
> >> > has only two states: ON and INACTIVE.  To distinguish which
> >> > set of states the current device has, add the 'OMAP3_HAS_PWROFF'
> >> > feature.  When that feature/bit is set, the device supports the
> >> > RETENTION and OFF states; otherwise, it doesn't.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Mark A. Greer <mgreer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> 
> >> Paul has mentioned this already, but the same applies here: We shouldn't
> >> be using SoC-global feature flag for this.   We already have per-pwrdm
> >> flags that indicate what states a given powerdomain suports (see .pwrsts
> >> field.)
> >> 
> >> Wherever we have blind writes to next powerstates that assume support
> >> for RET/OFF is present, those should probably use a helper function from
> >> the powerdomain code that checks if that state is even supported.
> >
> > How about something like the patch below?
> > Note: its not well tested; just RFC.
> 
> Yes, your proposed patch looks right to me.
> 
> I guess it's up to Paul & Jean to see if they'd rather see this build on
> top of the Jean's functional power state work, or take this as a
> standalone fix.
> 
> Kevin

FYI, I just submitted the patch,
	http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg69066.html

Mark

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel