Kevin Hilman had written, on 12/13/2010 09:49 PM, the following:
> Hi Nishanth,
> 
> Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> writes:
> 
>> as discussed in [1], here is step 2 - idle path errata fixes.
>> this is the next rev incorporating comments from V2 post
>> of this series.
> 
> I had a couple small comments on individual patches.
> 
> In addition, in the next series, can you report the platforms it was
> tested on, and how it was tested (retention idle/suspend, off
> idle/suspend, CPUidle enabled?, etc.)
> 
> I tested this series (and Jean's cleanup patch) on 34xx/n900 with
> retention idle & suspend and off idle & suspend with and without CPUidle
> enabled.)
> 
> Also, when posting an updated series, can you update the version of all
> patches in the series, even if they are unchanged?  This makes more
> more explicit versioning, keeps things clearer in patchwork and avoids
> problems with dumb mailers who thread by subject only.
> 
> Also, please Cc linux-arm-kernel when posting the next version. 
ok will do. for reference, I wrote a script to make things easy for all 
- attached.

With the pm-fixes being merged to master, I tested today with latest 
kernel.org master commit: 0fcdcfb against omap2plus_defconfig without 
any of my patches applied:

Results:
SDP3630:
Log: http://pastebin.mozilla.org/889642
Summary:
SUSPEND:OFF test | PASS | OFF: 0->1| RET:0 ->0 (8 sec) 

SUSPEND:RET test | PASS | OFF: 1->1| RET:0 ->1 (8 sec) 

IDLE:OFF test | PASS | OFF: 1->24| RET:1 ->1 (21 sec) 

IDLE:RET test | PASS | OFF: 24->| RET:1 ->23 (21 sec)

SDP3430 (ES3.1):
Log: http://pastebin.mozilla.org/889643
Summary:
SUSPEND:OFF test | FAIL | OFF: 0->0| RET:0 ->0 (7 sec) 

SUSPEND:RET test | FAIL | OFF: 0->0| RET:0 ->0 (6 sec) 

IDLE:OFF test | FAIL | OFF: 0->0| RET:0 ->0 (21 sec) 

IDLE:RET test | FAIL | OFF: 0->0| RET:0 ->0 (21 sec)

Core never hits OFF/retention.

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon