* Santosh <santosh.shilim...@ti.com> [110914 09:49]: > On Wednesday 14 September 2011 10:48 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >* Santosh<santosh.shilim...@ti.com> [110914 09:40]: > >>On Wednesday 14 September 2011 10:38 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >>>* Santosh<santosh.shilim...@ti.com> [110914 09:16]: > >>> > >>>Thanks for the clarification. It seems to me the spec is most likely > >>>wrong as we've had the GIC working for over two years now without > >>>doing anything with the wakeup gen registers :) > >>> > >>It's working because CPU clockdomain are never put under HW > >>supervised mode and they are kept in force wakeup. Clock-domain > >>never idles on mainline code. PM series will put the clock-domains > >>under HW supervison as needed to achieve any low power states and > >>then all sorts of corner cases will come out. > > > >But again the wakeup gen triggers only do something when hitting > >idle. There should be no use for them during runtime, right? > > > You missed my point in the description. Clockdomain inactive > doesn't depend on idle or WFI execution. Under HW supervison > CPU clock domain can get into inactive when CPU is stalled and > waiting for a read response from slow interconnect.
Ah OK. If it's needed during runtime too then that explains why the registers need to be kept in sync. > One thing for sure. Designers has chosen a wrong name to this > IP. Wakeugen apears like needed only for low power wakeup which > not seems to be entirely correct as per specs Yes it's not obvious reading the TRM either. Maybe add some comment about that to the patch? Regards, Tony -- 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
