> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tero
> Kristo
>
> From: Tero Kristo <[email protected]>
>
> IVA2 controls its target power state individually, thus suspend should not
> touch IVA2. Without this patch DSP suspend always fails.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <[email protected]>
> Acked-by: Ameya Palande <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> static struct prm_setup_vc prm_setup = {
> .clksetup = 0xff,
> @@ -676,6 +676,12 @@ static int omap3_pm_suspend(void)
> pwrst->saved_state = pwrdm_read_next_pwrst(pwrst->pwrdm);
> /* Set ones wanted by suspend */
> list_for_each_entry(pwrst, &pwrst_list, node) {
> + /* Special handling for IVA2, just use current sleep state */
> + if (pwrst->pwrdm == iva2_pwrdm) {
> + state = pwrdm_read_pwrst(pwrst->pwrdm);
> + if (state < PWRDM_POWER_ON)
> + pwrst->next_state = state;
> + }
Agree, IVA2 pwrdm is handled autonomously by bridge. I think this needs some
additional change to remove all the redundant
configuration of iva pwdm. There are some inconsistencies like,
- Say enable_off_mode is disabled. Before doing system wide suspend if
DSP hibernates then IVA2 will be put to OFF. In that
case we have IVA2 going to OFF and other domains in RET. This might not be an
issue, but it's bad from sytem PM framework integrity
perspective.
- enable_off_mode->omap3_pm_off_mode_enable will also touch IVA2 power
domain next state. This we don't want to do if dsp
bridge is already taking care of IVA2.
IMO, we need to have some mechanism wherein if bridge PM takes care of IVA then
PM framework should not configure the IVA
powerstate. It should only do if bridge PM is disabled.
-Girish
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
