From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] OMAP3: PM: Deny MPU idle while saving secure RAM Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:18:38 -0600 Message-ID: <4CE6DB9E.9000708@ti.com> References: <1290131698-6194-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <1290131698-6194-9-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <87eiahckba.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <9f54a2ec7fc8c27fc57c2aac9bad5405@mail.gmail.com> <4CE6B2D4.1030201@ti.com> <7ae7a7b138d09fc819e16f213e81d3bd@mail.gmail.com> <877hg9ayox.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog110.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.203]:35368 "EHLO na3sys009aog110.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932120Ab0KSUSq (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Nov 2010 15:18:46 -0500 Received: by mail-vw0-f41.google.com with SMTP id 10so2660073vws.28 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:18:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <877hg9ayox.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Kevin Hilman Cc: Santosh Shilimkar , linux-omap , Jean Pihet , Vishwanath Sripathy , Tony Kevin Hilman had written, on 11/19/2010 01:41 PM, the following: >>> I believe the fix we are attempting here is for a specific scenario >>> which IMHO is different from the issue solved in the link above. >> It will also solve the above issue indirectly. > > Yes, it indirectly fixes the issue solved by $SUBJECT patch, but what > else does it fix? Please see [1] - highlights: a) I dont seem to understand how clock domain idle is being denied by the patch b) the mentioned patch[1] should have removed the pwr_domain control around the secure ram operation - which is the only weakness in that patch, for power domain control, I like the mentioned patch - but pwrdomain control is not what is being introduced here. > > This secure mode call is currently the only one I'm aware of that does a > WFI. If there are others, then $SUBJECT patch is not enough. > > If TI cannot tell us definitively if other secure-mode calls may use > WFI, then we have to assume there are others, and $SUBJECT patch has to > be NAK'd in favor of a more generic fix like the one from Santosh. Thanks on the unfair beating IMHO, but, I believe I confirmed this here[2] - Quote: "After a long review, the impacted section is this logic alone." if you do have other specific SMIs in doubt(the ones we have verified to my knowledge are the ones around sleep34xx code), please list them out and I can get confirmation on behalf of TI if WFI is in use or not. AFAIK, SMIs can be supported by ROMcode and by PPA. is WFI is being used by PPA - there is no guarantee on the custom implementations. For example: CONFIG_OMAP3_L2_AUX_SECURE_SAVE_RESTORE -> has a service ID which could be implemented by PPA -> TI cannot guarentee that implementations will never use WFI, from a kernel context, we'd say - dont use wfi - let the kernel control it, though the actual implementation is upto the developer of PPA. Ref: [1]http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=129019267128364&w=2 [2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=129018700620594&w=2 -- Regards, Nishanth Menon