On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 16:27 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Tero Kristo <[email protected]> writes: > > > From: Rajendra Nayak <[email protected]> > > > > Restore all CM1/2 module registers as they are lost in OFF mode. > > Except they are still lost since nobody calls these new functions (in > this patch.) :) > > For ease of review, it's preferred to add the *users* of new code in the > same patch as the new code.
I'll fix this for the next version. I think this same comment applies to patch #3 also. > > > [[email protected]: minor clean ups] > > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Axel Haslam <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <[email protected]> > > --- > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/cm44xx.c | 322 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/cm44xx.h | 2 + > > 2 files changed, 324 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cm44xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cm44xx.c > > index 535d66e..fb5465b 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cm44xx.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/cm44xx.c > > @@ -21,8 +21,11 @@ > > #include "iomap.h" > > #include "common.h" > > #include "cm.h" > > +#include "cm44xx.h" > > #include "cm1_44xx.h" > > #include "cm2_44xx.h" > > +#include "cminst44xx.h" > > +#include "prcm44xx.h" > > #include "cm-regbits-44xx.h" > > > > /* CM1 hardware module low-level functions */ > > @@ -50,3 +53,322 @@ void omap4_cm2_write_inst_reg(u32 val, s16 inst, u16 > > reg) > > { > > __raw_writel(val, OMAP44XX_CM2_REGADDR(inst, reg)); > > } > > + > > +#define MAX_CM_REGISTERS 51 > > + > > +struct omap4_cm_reg { > > + u16 offset; > > + u32 val; > > +}; > > + > > +struct omap4_cm_regs { > > + u32 mod_off; > > + u32 no_reg; > > minor: do these need to be u32? u16 should be good enough to save space I guess, I'll try changing this and see what happens. > > > + struct omap4_cm_reg reg[MAX_CM_REGISTERS]; > > +}; > > + > > +static struct omap4_cm_regs cm1_regs[] = { > > + /* OMAP4430_CM1_OCP_SOCKET_MOD */ > > + { .mod_off = OMAP4430_CM1_OCP_SOCKET_INST, .no_reg = 1, > > + {{.offset = OMAP4_CM_CM1_PROFILING_CLKCTRL_OFFSET} }, > > For readability sake, I'd prefer to see this line indented. And why > the extra space before the final '}'} These tables are horrible, would be better to get rid of them completely but I guess that is not possible... I'll look at the indentation. > > > + }, > > [...] > > > +static void omap4_cm1_prepare_off(void) > > +{ > > + u32 i, j; > > + struct omap4_cm_regs *cm_reg = cm1_regs; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cm1_regs); i++, cm_reg++) { > > + for (j = 0; j < cm_reg->no_reg; j++) { > > + cm_reg->reg[j].val = > > + omap4_cminst_read_inst_reg(OMAP4430_CM1_PARTITION, > > + cm_reg->mod_off, > > + cm_reg->reg[j].offset); > > + } > > + } > > +} > > + > > +static void omap4_cm2_prepare_off(void) > > +{ > > + u32 i, j; > > + struct omap4_cm_regs *cm_reg = cm2_regs; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cm2_regs); i++, cm_reg++) { > > + for (j = 0; j < cm_reg->no_reg; j++) { > > + cm_reg->reg[j].val = > > + omap4_cminst_read_inst_reg(OMAP4430_CM2_PARTITION, > > + cm_reg->mod_off, > > + cm_reg->reg[j].offset); > > + } > > + } > > +} > > > +static void omap4_cm1_resume_off(void) > > +{ > > + u32 i, j; > > + struct omap4_cm_regs *cm_reg = cm1_regs; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cm1_regs); i++, cm_reg++) { > > + for (j = 0; j < cm_reg->no_reg; j++) { > > + omap4_cminst_write_inst_reg(cm_reg->reg[j].val, > > + OMAP4430_CM1_PARTITION, > > + cm_reg->mod_off, > > + cm_reg->reg[j].offset); > > + } > > + } > > +} > > + > > +static void omap4_cm2_resume_off(void) > > +{ > > + u32 i, j; > > + struct omap4_cm_regs *cm_reg = cm2_regs; > > + > > + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(cm2_regs); i++, cm_reg++) { > > + for (j = 0; j < cm_reg->no_reg; j++) { > > + omap4_cminst_write_inst_reg(cm_reg->reg[j].val, > > + OMAP4430_CM2_PARTITION, > > + cm_reg->mod_off, > > + cm_reg->reg[j].offset); > > + } > > + } > > +} > > Notice the two prpare functions (and resume functions) are basically > identical, except for the partition. > > How about adding a .partition field to the struct so there can be a > single function} Yea, should be possible. I'll fix this for next rev. -Tero -- 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
