Re: OMAP4430 produces boot warnings

[Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com>]

On Thu, 2012-11-22 at 15:42 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 2012-11-22 14:42, Archit Taneja wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Thursday 22 November 2012 04:33 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> This one is nice and long, from last nights boot test.  Looks like it was
> >> introduced sometime in the last couple of weeks.  Full log at:
> >>
> >> http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/build/result.php?type=boot&idx=518
> >>
> >> and config:
> >> http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/build/file.php?type=config&idx=2786
> > 
> > Doing a bisect results in this commit:
> > 
> > commit 0c7018e232c5526869250e57da8043a86a45b5de
> > Author: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@ti.com>
> > Date:   Thu Oct 18 12:20:06 2012 +0300
> > 
> >     ARM: OMAP4: suspend: Program all domains to retention
> > 
> >     Remove the FIXME's in the suspend sequence since
> >     we now intend to support system level RET support.
> > 
> >     Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@ti.com>
> >     Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com>
> >     Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
> > 
> > I guess this commit will allow DSS to go to a lower power state. So what
> > might be happening is:
> > 
> > - After returning back from the lower power state, the DISPC base
> > address register hasn't been restored. Leading to a fetch from a bad
> > address. Resulting in an OCP error.
> > 
> > or
> > 
> > -  DSS never came back to ON state, and it's not able to access
> > registers. I doubt this possibility because we got an OCP error
> > interrupt from DISPC.
> 
> It seems that the problem is that dispc never restores the context,
> because get_ctx_loss_count always returns 1. I enabled pwrdm debug
> prints, and pwrdm_get_context_loss_count() always returns 1 for dss,
> even if the register contents have obviously been lost.

I guess you checked that DSS pwrdm is switching between RET and ON in
your setup?

> Does the pwrdm mistakenly think that in RET state the DSS still keeps
> the register contents?

This might be the case, however the pwrdm code should be generic and
handle all domains properly. What is the tree / branch / commit you are
using for testing this stuff? I can take a look at this also.

-Tero