On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 21:52 +0300, Woodruff, Richard wrote:
> > From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
> > ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Kalle Jokiniemi
> > Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 5:59 AM
>
>
> > Yes, this is a good idea in theory, but the reality of wake-up late
> From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
> ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Kalle Jokiniemi
> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 5:59 AM
> Yes, this is a good idea in theory, but the reality of wake-up latencies
> kind-a kill this one. Wake-up from even C1 (MPU INA, CORE ON) t
ap@vger.kernel.org; jouni.hogander
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] OMAP: I2C: Add mpu wake up latency constraint in
> i2c
>
> On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 13:49 +0300, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > Kalle Jokiniemi said the following on 10/07/2009 05:10 AM:
> > >>> extra delays and subsequent
Kalle Jokiniemi said the following on 10/07/2009 05:10 AM:
>>> extra delays and subsequent re-trys cause i2c clocks
>>> to be active more often. This has also an negative
>>> effect on power consumption.
>>>
>>> Added a constraint that allows MPU to wake up in few
>>> hundred usecs, which is roughl
Hi,
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 20:08 +0300, Pandita, Vikram wrote:
> Jokiniemi
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org
> >[mailto:linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Kalle
> >Jokiniemi
> >Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:29 AM
> >To: khil...@deeproots
Jokiniemi
>-Original Message-
>From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org
>[mailto:linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Kalle
>Jokiniemi
>Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 11:29 AM
>To: khil...@deeprootsystems.com
>Cc: jhnik...@gmail.com; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Kalle Jokiniemi
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 14:41 +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Kalle Jokiniemi wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 19:36 +0300, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> Seems like the latency value should also be (optionally) passed in
> >> pdata so this can be experimented with per-platform.
> >
> > Well, it
Kalle Jokiniemi writes:
> On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 19:36 +0300, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Kalle Jokiniemi writes:
>>
>> > While waiting for completion of the i2c transfer, the
>> > MPU could hit OFF mode and cause several msecs of
>> > delay that made i2c transfers fail more often. The
>> > extra del
Hello,
Kalle Jokiniemi wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 19:36 +0300, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Seems like the latency value should also be (optionally) passed in
pdata so this can be experimented with per-platform.
Well, it kind of is already, since we pass the function that sets the
latency from platf
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 09:10 +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> Hi Kalle
>
> Few minor comments below.
>
> On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:28:43 +0300
> Kalle Jokiniemi wrote:
>
> > -static u32 i2c_rate[ARRAY_SIZE(i2c_resources)];
> > +static struct omap_i2c_bus_platform_data
> > i2c_pdata[ARRAY_SIZE(i2c_res
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 19:36 +0300, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Kalle Jokiniemi writes:
>
> > While waiting for completion of the i2c transfer, the
> > MPU could hit OFF mode and cause several msecs of
> > delay that made i2c transfers fail more often. The
> > extra delays and subsequent re-trys cause i
Hi Kalle
Few minor comments below.
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:28:43 +0300
Kalle Jokiniemi wrote:
> -static u32 i2c_rate[ARRAY_SIZE(i2c_resources)];
> +static struct omap_i2c_bus_platform_data
> i2c_pdata[ARRAY_SIZE(i2c_resources)];
> static struct platform_device omap_i2c_devices[] = {
> - I2
Kalle Jokiniemi writes:
> While waiting for completion of the i2c transfer, the
> MPU could hit OFF mode and cause several msecs of
> delay that made i2c transfers fail more often. The
> extra delays and subsequent re-trys cause i2c clocks
> to be active more often. This has also an negative
> ef
13 matches
Mail list logo
