Kevin Hilman had written, on 12/13/2010 09:42 PM, the following:
Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> writes:
Vishwanath Sripathy had written, on 12/13/2010 08:58 AM, the following:
[...]
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-
omap2/pm34xx.c
index ba3c0d6..da12a56 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c
@@ -932,8 +932,15 @@ void omap3_pm_off_mode_enable(int enable)
#endif
list_for_each_entry(pwrst, &pwrst_list, node) {
- pwrst->next_state = state;
- omap_set_pwrdm_state(pwrst->pwrdm, state);
+ if (IS_PM34XX_ERRATUM(SDRC_WAKEUP_ERRATUM_i583)
&&
+ pwrst->pwrdm == core_pwrdm) {
+ pwrst->next_state = PWRDM_POWER_RET;
+ pr_err("%s: cannot enable Core OFF due to
i583\n",
+ __func__);
You probably need to throw up this warning only if state
== PWRDM_POWER_OFF. Otherwise this code looks fine to me.
Thanks for the review. added it. will post a v4 later today if no one
cribs with this approach. I will retain the logic in sram_idle as well
as a backup measure.
This logic doesn't belong in SRAM idle. To handle the idle case, you
should also disable the 'valid' bit for any C-state that has CORE off (I
think there's only one.)
Apologies, but I dont think I get your point. Do you intend to state
that we dynamically add the C7 state in cpuidle34xx.c if this condition
is met?
I agree that this additional check in sram_idle should be removed, but
as long as I handle it in omap3_pm_off_mode_enable where the next states
are configured, is'nt that enough or am I missing something?
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
