From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP3: PM: Fix for Silicon bug on Context Restore on OMAP3430 Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:25:41 -0500 Message-ID: <4ACB6175.2080506@ti.com> References: <1254741761-31546-1-git-send-email-y> <87ljjpzs9p.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <4ACA2C83.9080400@ti.com> <5A47E75E594F054BAF48C5E4FC4B92AB030A3321EF@dbde02.ent.ti.com> <87k4z8u0fh.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <5A47E75E594F054BAF48C5E4FC4B92AB030A33246A@dbde02.ent.ti.com> <8763assixq.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <5A47E75E594F054BAF48C5E4FC4B92AB030A3324B2@dbde02.ent.ti.com> <87my44r30r.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <5A47E75E594F054BAF48C5E4FC4B92AB030A3324C5@dbde02.ent.ti.com> <87eipgr29j.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <4ACB5F98.2080603@ti.com> <5A47E75E594F054BAF48C5E4FC4B92AB030A3324D8@dbde02.ent.ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:39911 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755537AbZJFP0U (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 11:26:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5A47E75E594F054BAF48C5E4FC4B92AB030A3324D8@dbde02.ent.ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: "Gopinath, Thara" Cc: Kevin Hilman , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "Gulati, Shweta" Gopinath, Thara had written, on 10/06/2009 10:23 AM, the following: > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Menon, Nishanth >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 8:48 PM >>> To: Kevin Hilman >>> Cc: Gopinath, Thara; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Gulati, Shweta >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP3: PM: Fix for Silicon bug on Context Restore on OMAP3430 >>> >>> Kevin Hilman had written, on 10/06/2009 10:05 AM, the following: >>>> "Gopinath, Thara" writes: >>>> >>>>> Will repost the patch with the defconfig option added. So that this can be disabled if not needed. >>>> ok, please update the changelog as well as describe the 300usec value >>>> in terms of cycles. IOW, is 300usecs going to work at lower OPPs also? >>>> >>> Could I request for 2 options: >>> a) workaround with no delay (manual save restore) - power savings for >>> boards which dont use the pin >>> b) workaround with 300uSec - for boards which use the pin ->functional > How do we find out if the pin is functional or not? I thought you are adding Kconfig option. leave it to the board defconfig to decide? >>> Also please have a check based on CPU revision and add errata number? > I do not think this is yet published as an errata. could we atleast mark it as an /* ERRATA YET TO BE NUMBERED... */ blah blah -- Regards, Nishanth Menon