* [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place @ 2010-01-08 11:59 ` Abhijit Pagare 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Abhijit Pagare @ 2010-01-08 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-omap, linux-arm-kernel; +Cc: Abhijit Pagare, Paul Walmsley The return prevents the power domains from getting registered. Hence removing it to allow the frameworks model to work. Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pagare <abhijitpagare@ti.com> Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com> --- Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP4430 simulator and ES1 Chip Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP3430 SDP Compiled for OMAP2430 and OMAP2420 arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 1 - 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c index a779240..6d1e97b 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c @@ -362,7 +362,6 @@ void __init omap2_check_revision(void) omap3_cpuinfo(); } else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) { omap4_check_revision(); - return; } else { pr_err("OMAP revision unknown, please fix!\n"); } -- 1.5.4.7 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place @ 2010-01-08 11:59 ` Abhijit Pagare 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Abhijit Pagare @ 2010-01-08 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel The return prevents the power domains from getting registered. Hence removing it to allow the frameworks model to work. Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pagare <abhijitpagare@ti.com> Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com> --- Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP4430 simulator and ES1 Chip Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP3430 SDP Compiled for OMAP2430 and OMAP2420 arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 1 - 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c index a779240..6d1e97b 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c @@ -362,7 +362,6 @@ void __init omap2_check_revision(void) omap3_cpuinfo(); } else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) { omap4_check_revision(); - return; } else { pr_err("OMAP revision unknown, please fix!\n"); } -- 1.5.4.7 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place 2010-01-08 11:59 ` Abhijit Pagare @ 2010-01-08 14:01 ` Aguirre, Sergio -1 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Aguirre, Sergio @ 2010-01-08 14:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pagare, Abhijit, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Paul Walmsley Abhijit, > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap- > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pagare, Abhijit > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 5:59 AM > To: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > Cc: Pagare, Abhijit; Paul Walmsley > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power > domain framework is in place > > The return prevents the power domains from getting registered. > Hence removing it to allow the frameworks model to work. > > Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pagare <abhijitpagare@ti.com> > Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com> > --- > > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP4430 simulator and ES1 Chip > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP3430 SDP > Compiled for OMAP2430 and OMAP2420 > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 1 - > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > index a779240..6d1e97b 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > @@ -362,7 +362,6 @@ void __init omap2_check_revision(void) > omap3_cpuinfo(); > } else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) { > omap4_check_revision(); > - return; > } else { > pr_err("OMAP revision unknown, please fix!\n"); > } I don't have an OMAP4 with me, but I found something weird in your reported behaviour... The code that was being skipped is: /* * OK, now we know the exact revision. Initialize omap_chip bits * for powerdowmain and clockdomain code. */ if (cpu_is_omap243x()) { /* Currently only supports 2430ES2.1 and 2430-all */ omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2430; } else if (cpu_is_omap242x()) { /* Currently only supports 2420ES2.1.1 and 2420-all */ omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2420; } else if (cpu_is_omap3505() || cpu_is_omap3517()) { omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430 | CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1; } else if (cpu_is_omap343x()) { omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430; if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0) omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES1; else if (omap_rev() >= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0 && omap_rev() <= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1) omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES2; else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0) omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_0; else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1) omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1; else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0) omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3630ES1; } else { pr_err("Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!\n"); } And, in theory, in OMAP4 case, you SHOULDN'T be doing anything here, as there's no case for cpu_is_omap443x or similar. So you should be _only_ seeing a print in console saying: "Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!", right? Is OMAP4 chip giving positive on cpu_is_omap343x() test then?? Regards, Sergio > -- > 1.5.4.7 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place @ 2010-01-08 14:01 ` Aguirre, Sergio 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Aguirre, Sergio @ 2010-01-08 14:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Abhijit, > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-omap-owner at vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap- > owner at vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pagare, Abhijit > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 5:59 AM > To: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > Cc: Pagare, Abhijit; Paul Walmsley > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power > domain framework is in place > > The return prevents the power domains from getting registered. > Hence removing it to allow the frameworks model to work. > > Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pagare <abhijitpagare@ti.com> > Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com> > --- > > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP4430 simulator and ES1 Chip > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP3430 SDP > Compiled for OMAP2430 and OMAP2420 > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 1 - > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > index a779240..6d1e97b 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > @@ -362,7 +362,6 @@ void __init omap2_check_revision(void) > omap3_cpuinfo(); > } else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) { > omap4_check_revision(); > - return; > } else { > pr_err("OMAP revision unknown, please fix!\n"); > } I don't have an OMAP4 with me, but I found something weird in your reported behaviour... The code that was being skipped is: /* * OK, now we know the exact revision. Initialize omap_chip bits * for powerdowmain and clockdomain code. */ if (cpu_is_omap243x()) { /* Currently only supports 2430ES2.1 and 2430-all */ omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2430; } else if (cpu_is_omap242x()) { /* Currently only supports 2420ES2.1.1 and 2420-all */ omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2420; } else if (cpu_is_omap3505() || cpu_is_omap3517()) { omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430 | CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1; } else if (cpu_is_omap343x()) { omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430; if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0) omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES1; else if (omap_rev() >= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0 && omap_rev() <= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1) omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES2; else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0) omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_0; else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1) omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1; else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0) omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3630ES1; } else { pr_err("Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!\n"); } And, in theory, in OMAP4 case, you SHOULDN'T be doing anything here, as there's no case for cpu_is_omap443x or similar. So you should be _only_ seeing a print in console saying: "Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!", right? Is OMAP4 chip giving positive on cpu_is_omap343x() test then?? Regards, Sergio > -- > 1.5.4.7 > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* RE: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place 2010-01-08 14:01 ` Aguirre, Sergio @ 2010-01-11 5:59 ` Pagare, Abhijit -1 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Pagare, Abhijit @ 2010-01-11 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Aguirre, Sergio, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Paul Walmsley Sergio, I have taken care of that in my other patches, which I had posted earlier. They are not in mainline yet but are lined up for the next release. You can find the same here. http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=126088474831309&w=2 Do let me know if you have any further questions. Best Regards, Abhijit Pagare > -----Original Message----- > From: Aguirre, Sergio > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 PM > To: Pagare, Abhijit; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm- > kernel@lists.infradead.org > Cc: Paul Walmsley > Subject: RE: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power > domain framework is in place > > Abhijit, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap- > > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pagare, Abhijit > > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 5:59 AM > > To: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > > Cc: Pagare, Abhijit; Paul Walmsley > > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power > > domain framework is in place > > > > The return prevents the power domains from getting registered. > > Hence removing it to allow the frameworks model to work. > > > > Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pagare <abhijitpagare@ti.com> > > Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com> > > --- > > > > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP4430 simulator and ES1 Chip > > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP3430 SDP > > Compiled for OMAP2430 and OMAP2420 > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 1 - > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > > index a779240..6d1e97b 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > > @@ -362,7 +362,6 @@ void __init omap2_check_revision(void) > > omap3_cpuinfo(); > > } else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) { > > omap4_check_revision(); > > - return; > > } else { > > pr_err("OMAP revision unknown, please fix!\n"); > > } > > I don't have an OMAP4 with me, but I found something weird in your > reported behaviour... > > The code that was being skipped is: > > /* > * OK, now we know the exact revision. Initialize omap_chip bits > * for powerdowmain and clockdomain code. > */ > if (cpu_is_omap243x()) { > /* Currently only supports 2430ES2.1 and 2430-all */ > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2430; > } else if (cpu_is_omap242x()) { > /* Currently only supports 2420ES2.1.1 and 2420-all */ > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2420; > } else if (cpu_is_omap3505() || cpu_is_omap3517()) { > omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430 | CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1; > } else if (cpu_is_omap343x()) { > omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430; > if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0) > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES1; > else if (omap_rev() >= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0 && > omap_rev() <= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1) > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES2; > else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0) > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_0; > else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1) > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1; > else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0) > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3630ES1; > } else { > pr_err("Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!\n"); > } > > And, in theory, in OMAP4 case, you SHOULDN'T be doing anything here, as > there's no case for cpu_is_omap443x or similar. So you should be _only_ > seeing a print in console saying: "Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!", > right? > > Is OMAP4 chip giving positive on cpu_is_omap343x() test then?? > > Regards, > Sergio > > -- > > 1.5.4.7 > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place @ 2010-01-11 5:59 ` Pagare, Abhijit 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Pagare, Abhijit @ 2010-01-11 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Sergio, I have taken care of that in my other patches, which I had posted earlier. They are not in mainline yet but are lined up for the next release. You can find the same here. http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=126088474831309&w=2 Do let me know if you have any further questions. Best Regards, Abhijit Pagare > -----Original Message----- > From: Aguirre, Sergio > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 PM > To: Pagare, Abhijit; linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm- > kernel at lists.infradead.org > Cc: Paul Walmsley > Subject: RE: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power > domain framework is in place > > Abhijit, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-omap-owner at vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap- > > owner at vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pagare, Abhijit > > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 5:59 AM > > To: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > > Cc: Pagare, Abhijit; Paul Walmsley > > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power > > domain framework is in place > > > > The return prevents the power domains from getting registered. > > Hence removing it to allow the frameworks model to work. > > > > Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pagare <abhijitpagare@ti.com> > > Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com> > > --- > > > > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP4430 simulator and ES1 Chip > > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP3430 SDP > > Compiled for OMAP2430 and OMAP2420 > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 1 - > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > > index a779240..6d1e97b 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > > @@ -362,7 +362,6 @@ void __init omap2_check_revision(void) > > omap3_cpuinfo(); > > } else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) { > > omap4_check_revision(); > > - return; > > } else { > > pr_err("OMAP revision unknown, please fix!\n"); > > } > > I don't have an OMAP4 with me, but I found something weird in your > reported behaviour... > > The code that was being skipped is: > > /* > * OK, now we know the exact revision. Initialize omap_chip bits > * for powerdowmain and clockdomain code. > */ > if (cpu_is_omap243x()) { > /* Currently only supports 2430ES2.1 and 2430-all */ > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2430; > } else if (cpu_is_omap242x()) { > /* Currently only supports 2420ES2.1.1 and 2420-all */ > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2420; > } else if (cpu_is_omap3505() || cpu_is_omap3517()) { > omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430 | CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1; > } else if (cpu_is_omap343x()) { > omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430; > if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0) > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES1; > else if (omap_rev() >= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0 && > omap_rev() <= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1) > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES2; > else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0) > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_0; > else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1) > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1; > else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0) > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3630ES1; > } else { > pr_err("Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!\n"); > } > > And, in theory, in OMAP4 case, you SHOULDN'T be doing anything here, as > there's no case for cpu_is_omap443x or similar. So you should be _only_ > seeing a print in console saying: "Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!", > right? > > Is OMAP4 chip giving positive on cpu_is_omap343x() test then?? > > Regards, > Sergio > > -- > > 1.5.4.7 > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in > > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place 2010-01-11 5:59 ` Pagare, Abhijit @ 2010-01-11 23:44 ` Tony Lindgren -1 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Tony Lindgren @ 2010-01-11 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pagare, Abhijit Cc: Aguirre, Sergio, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Paul Walmsley * Pagare, Abhijit <abhijitpagare@ti.com> [100110 21:57]: > Sergio, > I have taken care of that in my other patches, which I had posted earlier. They are not in mainline yet but are lined up for the next release. You can find the same here. > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=126088474831309&w=2 > > Do let me know if you have any further questions. Please update your other patch to include this change. Regards, Tony > > Best Regards, > Abhijit Pagare > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Aguirre, Sergio > > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 PM > > To: Pagare, Abhijit; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm- > > kernel@lists.infradead.org > > Cc: Paul Walmsley > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power > > domain framework is in place > > > > Abhijit, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap- > > > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pagare, Abhijit > > > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 5:59 AM > > > To: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > > > Cc: Pagare, Abhijit; Paul Walmsley > > > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power > > > domain framework is in place > > > > > > The return prevents the power domains from getting registered. > > > Hence removing it to allow the frameworks model to work. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pagare <abhijitpagare@ti.com> > > > Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com> > > > --- > > > > > > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP4430 simulator and ES1 Chip > > > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP3430 SDP > > > Compiled for OMAP2430 and OMAP2420 > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 1 - > > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > > > index a779240..6d1e97b 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > > > @@ -362,7 +362,6 @@ void __init omap2_check_revision(void) > > > omap3_cpuinfo(); > > > } else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) { > > > omap4_check_revision(); > > > - return; > > > } else { > > > pr_err("OMAP revision unknown, please fix!\n"); > > > } > > > > I don't have an OMAP4 with me, but I found something weird in your > > reported behaviour... > > > > The code that was being skipped is: > > > > /* > > * OK, now we know the exact revision. Initialize omap_chip bits > > * for powerdowmain and clockdomain code. > > */ > > if (cpu_is_omap243x()) { > > /* Currently only supports 2430ES2.1 and 2430-all */ > > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2430; > > } else if (cpu_is_omap242x()) { > > /* Currently only supports 2420ES2.1.1 and 2420-all */ > > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2420; > > } else if (cpu_is_omap3505() || cpu_is_omap3517()) { > > omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430 | CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1; > > } else if (cpu_is_omap343x()) { > > omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430; > > if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0) > > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES1; > > else if (omap_rev() >= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0 && > > omap_rev() <= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1) > > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES2; > > else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0) > > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_0; > > else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1) > > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1; > > else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0) > > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3630ES1; > > } else { > > pr_err("Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!\n"); > > } > > > > And, in theory, in OMAP4 case, you SHOULDN'T be doing anything here, as > > there's no case for cpu_is_omap443x or similar. So you should be _only_ > > seeing a print in console saying: "Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!", > > right? > > > > Is OMAP4 chip giving positive on cpu_is_omap343x() test then?? > > > > Regards, > > Sergio > > > -- > > > 1.5.4.7 > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in > > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place @ 2010-01-11 23:44 ` Tony Lindgren 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Tony Lindgren @ 2010-01-11 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel * Pagare, Abhijit <abhijitpagare@ti.com> [100110 21:57]: > Sergio, > I have taken care of that in my other patches, which I had posted earlier. They are not in mainline yet but are lined up for the next release. You can find the same here. > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=126088474831309&w=2 > > Do let me know if you have any further questions. Please update your other patch to include this change. Regards, Tony > > Best Regards, > Abhijit Pagare > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Aguirre, Sergio > > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 PM > > To: Pagare, Abhijit; linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm- > > kernel at lists.infradead.org > > Cc: Paul Walmsley > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power > > domain framework is in place > > > > Abhijit, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: linux-omap-owner at vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap- > > > owner at vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pagare, Abhijit > > > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 5:59 AM > > > To: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > > > Cc: Pagare, Abhijit; Paul Walmsley > > > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power > > > domain framework is in place > > > > > > The return prevents the power domains from getting registered. > > > Hence removing it to allow the frameworks model to work. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pagare <abhijitpagare@ti.com> > > > Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com> > > > --- > > > > > > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP4430 simulator and ES1 Chip > > > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP3430 SDP > > > Compiled for OMAP2430 and OMAP2420 > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 1 - > > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > > > index a779240..6d1e97b 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c > > > @@ -362,7 +362,6 @@ void __init omap2_check_revision(void) > > > omap3_cpuinfo(); > > > } else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) { > > > omap4_check_revision(); > > > - return; > > > } else { > > > pr_err("OMAP revision unknown, please fix!\n"); > > > } > > > > I don't have an OMAP4 with me, but I found something weird in your > > reported behaviour... > > > > The code that was being skipped is: > > > > /* > > * OK, now we know the exact revision. Initialize omap_chip bits > > * for powerdowmain and clockdomain code. > > */ > > if (cpu_is_omap243x()) { > > /* Currently only supports 2430ES2.1 and 2430-all */ > > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2430; > > } else if (cpu_is_omap242x()) { > > /* Currently only supports 2420ES2.1.1 and 2420-all */ > > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2420; > > } else if (cpu_is_omap3505() || cpu_is_omap3517()) { > > omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430 | CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1; > > } else if (cpu_is_omap343x()) { > > omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430; > > if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0) > > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES1; > > else if (omap_rev() >= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0 && > > omap_rev() <= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1) > > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES2; > > else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0) > > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_0; > > else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1) > > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1; > > else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0) > > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3630ES1; > > } else { > > pr_err("Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!\n"); > > } > > > > And, in theory, in OMAP4 case, you SHOULDN'T be doing anything here, as > > there's no case for cpu_is_omap443x or similar. So you should be _only_ > > seeing a print in console saying: "Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!", > > right? > > > > Is OMAP4 chip giving positive on cpu_is_omap343x() test then?? > > > > Regards, > > Sergio > > > -- > > > 1.5.4.7 > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in > > > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org > > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-01-11 23:44 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-01-08 11:59 [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place Abhijit Pagare 2010-01-08 11:59 ` Abhijit Pagare 2010-01-08 14:01 ` Aguirre, Sergio 2010-01-08 14:01 ` Aguirre, Sergio 2010-01-11 5:59 ` Pagare, Abhijit 2010-01-11 5:59 ` Pagare, Abhijit 2010-01-11 23:44 ` Tony Lindgren 2010-01-11 23:44 ` Tony Lindgren
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.