Am Mittwoch, den 11.10.2017, 15:08 +0300 schrieb Leonard Crestez: > Enable cpuidle support on i.MX6DL starting from > IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_1. > > This also makes the code cleaner because 6q and 6dl actually have > different revision histories. > > Signed-off-by: Bai Ping <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Leonard Crestez <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Lucas Stach <[email protected]> > --- > > Changes since v1: https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg610461. > html > * Clarified comment but kept > instead of >= because that's what the > old code used. Would be OK to change with further feedback. > > arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c | 9 ++++++--- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach- > imx6q.c > index 45801b2..5707113 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c > @@ -371,10 +371,13 @@ static struct platform_device > imx6q_cpufreq_pdev = { > static void __init imx6q_init_late(void) > { > /* > - * WAIT mode is broken on TO 1.0 and 1.1, so there is no > point > - * to run cpuidle on them. > + * WAIT mode is broken on imx6 Dual/Quad revision 1.0 and > 1.1 so > + * there is no point to run cpuidle on them. > + * > + * It does work on imx6 Solo/DualLite starting from 1.1 > */ > - if (imx_get_soc_revision() > IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_1) > + if ((cpu_is_imx6q() && imx_get_soc_revision() > > IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_1) || > + (cpu_is_imx6dl() && imx_get_soc_revision() > > IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_0)) > imx6q_cpuidle_init(); > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_IMX6Q_CPUFREQ)) {
