On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 07:14:24, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> Hi
>
> some other observations:
>
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2011, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>
> > +static struct powerdomain per_33xx_pwrdm = {
> > + .name = "per_pwrdm",
> > + .voltdm = { .name = "core" },
> > + .prcm_partition = AM33XX_PRM_PARTITION,
> > + .prcm_offs = AM33XX_PRM_PER_MOD,
> > + .pwrsts = PWRSTS_OFF_RET_ON,
> > + .pwrsts_logic_ret = PWRSTS_OFF_RET,
> > + .pwrstctrl_offs = AM33XX_PM_PER_PWRSTCTRL_OFFSET,
> > + .pwrstst_offs = AM33XX_PM_PER_PWRSTST_OFFSET,
> > + .flags = PWRDM_HAS_LOWPOWERSTATECHANGE,
> > + .banks = 3,
> > + .pwrsts_mem_ret = {
> > + [0] = PWRSTS_OFF_RET, /* icss_mem */
> > + [1] = PWRSTS_OFF_RET, /* per_mem */
> > + [2] = PWRSTS_OFF_RET, /* ram_mem */
> > + },
> > + .pwrsts_mem_on = {
> > + [0] = PWRSTS_ON, /* icss_mem */
> > + [1] = PWRSTS_ON, /* per_mem */
> > + [2] = PWRSTS_ON, /* ram_mem */
> > + },
> > +};
>
> According to SPRUH73C Table 8-184 "PM_PER_PWRSTCTRL Register Field
> Descriptions" the pwrsts_mem_on field for RAM_MEM should be
> PWRSTS_OFF_RET_ON.
>
> > +static struct powerdomain mpu_33xx_pwrdm = {
> > + .name = "mpu_pwrdm",
> > + .voltdm = { .name = "mpu" },
> > + .prcm_partition = AM33XX_PRM_PARTITION,
> > + .prcm_offs = AM33XX_PRM_MPU_MOD,
> > + .pwrsts = PWRSTS_OFF_RET_ON,
> > + .pwrsts_logic_ret = PWRSTS_OFF_RET,
> > + .pwrstctrl_offs = AM33XX_PM_MPU_PWRSTCTRL_OFFSET,
> > + .pwrstst_offs = AM33XX_PM_MPU_PWRSTST_OFFSET,
> > + .flags = PWRDM_HAS_LOWPOWERSTATECHANGE,
> > + .banks = 3,
> > + .pwrsts_mem_ret = {
> > + [0] = PWRSTS_OFF_RET, /* mpu_l1 */
> > + [1] = PWRSTS_OFF_RET, /* mpu_l2 */
> > + [2] = PWRSTS_OFF_RET, /* mpu_ram */
> > + },
>
> Again SPRUH73C Table 8-191 "PM_MPU_PWRSTCTRL Register Field Descriptions"
> claims these should simply by PWRSTS_RET.
>
> > + .pwrsts_mem_on = {
> > + [0] = PWRSTS_ON, /* mpu_l1 */
> > + [1] = PWRSTS_ON, /* mpu_l2 */
> > + [2] = PWRSTS_ON, /* mpu_ram */
> > + },
> > +};
>
> And the same table claims the MPU_RAM pwrsts_mem_on field should be
> PWRSTS_OFF_ON.
>
> Can you please reconcile these differences and let us know which values
> should be correct?
>
Paul,
The initialization used in the patch is correct. Unfortunately, the TRM is
incorrect here. I have already raised this issue with respective folks and soon
it will get corrected.
Thanks,
Vaibhav
> thanks
>
>
> - Paul
>
--
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
