On Thursday 05 July 2012, Rajendra Nayak wrote: [..] > From 5f5e4eb342110286bf719c7d9d7c1959f53e34f9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Rajendra Nayak <rna...@ti.com> > Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:33:28 +0530 > Subject: [RFC] ARM: OMAP: Powerdomain: control memory and logic bits > internally > > Powerdomain framework exposes various apis for memory and logic > control for powerdomains, for its users to program OSWR: Open SWitch > Retention state. While in theory, there are various combinations of > memory and logic states possible which can be configured as OSWR, > in practice all OMAPs use just one combination. Logic lost, memory retained. > > This can very easily be handled within the powerdomain framework itself, > without exposing all complex memory/logic control apis to upper layer > drivers like cpuidle and suspend. > > To do this, introduce 2 new power domain states PWRDM_POWER_CSWR and > PWRDM_POWER_OSWR usable by the users of powerdomain framework and > make all memory/logic control apis internal to powerdomain framework. > Change all users of powerdomain framework to get rid of all usage > of memory/logic control apis and use the newly defined states for > CSWR and OSWR with the already used powerstate control apis. > > Some functions (which are now made internal) are forward declared > to avoid moving functions around in the file (which can be done in a > later patch) to help keep the patch reviewable. > > Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rna...@ti.com>
Ref: http://marc.info/?t=133968586800004&r=1&w=2 Apologies, but i've had to copypaste the original message, so inline response might be a bit messed up. >From an initial port to get cpuidle working on OMAP5, my experiences follow: a) counter handling (pm-debug.c) - we can now do better than give our arcane RET:5 LOGIC-POWER-OFF:4 , instead we can clearly indicate OSWR, CSWR in counter Part of the issue also now becomes that count and time arrays are in the range of PWRDM_POWER_ON. They break when CSWR/OSWR is in pwrdm->state b) pwrst handling this becomes a hard one to handle (as usual) when comparisons of while (!(pwrdm->pwrsts & (1 << pwrst))) { if (pwrst == PWRDM_POWER_OFF) goto out; pwrst--; } with value 4, 5 -> pwrsts should either now use OSWR, CSWR definitions OR we will need translate back before checks c) in few critical places, these mentioned error checks do silent error returns - example: if (!(pwrdm->pwrsts_logic_ret & (1 << pwrst))) return -EINVAL; this bit me more than once while i tried to bring up the patch we should be doing a patch which introduces a ratelimited WARN to kill the bad callers. d) we have been lazy in programming and have been using cur_pwrst < PWRDM_POWER_ON or INACTIVE etc.. and do a set of operations based off that. this wont work as CSWR, OSWR > POWER_INACTIVE. (e.g. pm3 code) e) similar to what Jean did, omap_set_pwrdm_state will need to move over from pm.c to powerdomain.c f) We probably should also will need an updated patch for http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=133968581105049&w=2 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
