From: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@ti.com>
To: t-kristo@ti.com
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>,
santosh.shilimkar@ti.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
khilman@deeprootsystems.com
Subject: Re: OMAP4 PM bootloader dependency problems
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:56:48 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <510A54F8.4090609@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1359622829.10415.40.camel@sokoban>
Tero,
On Thursday 31 January 2013 02:30 PM, Tero Kristo wrote:
> Personally I don't like too much to have just extra spam during boot,
> which in many cases is even unnecessary (e.g. people who actually have
> good u-boot in use.) Personally I would like to have some sort of test
> during boot which detects broken PM and maybe prevents core idle
> completely if this is the case. Alternatively we can add extra info to
> the failed suspend dump and mention a good u-boot to try out (v2012-07
> or newer.)
>
> If we could detect boot loader version from kernel side, that would work
> also.
Given that there is no easy way to say for sure the bootloader is the
cause for broken PM in the kernel, neither is it possible to know the
bootloader version, why don't we do this.
Throw a pr_warn() at boot only when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is enabled. Note
that it isn't enabled by default in omap2plus_defconfig. Also
throw one when a suspend fails, saying bootloader *could be* a possible
cause specifying the right version to be used. That should give enough
hints to folks still using old bootloaders and testing PM.
Does that sound good?
regards,
Rajendra
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: rnayak@ti.com (Rajendra Nayak)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: OMAP4 PM bootloader dependency problems
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:56:48 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <510A54F8.4090609@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1359622829.10415.40.camel@sokoban>
Tero,
On Thursday 31 January 2013 02:30 PM, Tero Kristo wrote:
> Personally I don't like too much to have just extra spam during boot,
> which in many cases is even unnecessary (e.g. people who actually have
> good u-boot in use.) Personally I would like to have some sort of test
> during boot which detects broken PM and maybe prevents core idle
> completely if this is the case. Alternatively we can add extra info to
> the failed suspend dump and mention a good u-boot to try out (v2012-07
> or newer.)
>
> If we could detect boot loader version from kernel side, that would work
> also.
Given that there is no easy way to say for sure the bootloader is the
cause for broken PM in the kernel, neither is it possible to know the
bootloader version, why don't we do this.
Throw a pr_warn() at boot only when CONFIG_CPU_IDLE is enabled. Note
that it isn't enabled by default in omap2plus_defconfig. Also
throw one when a suspend fails, saying bootloader *could be* a possible
cause specifying the right version to be used. That should give enough
hints to folks still using old bootloaders and testing PM.
Does that sound good?
regards,
Rajendra
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-31 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-22 2:42 OMAP4 PM bootloader dependency problems Paul Walmsley
2013-01-22 2:42 ` Paul Walmsley
2013-01-30 17:15 ` Paul Walmsley
2013-01-30 17:15 ` Paul Walmsley
2013-01-31 9:00 ` Tero Kristo
2013-01-31 9:00 ` Tero Kristo
2013-01-31 11:26 ` Rajendra Nayak [this message]
2013-01-31 11:26 ` Rajendra Nayak
2013-01-31 15:40 ` Paul Walmsley
2013-01-31 15:40 ` Paul Walmsley
2013-01-31 16:29 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-31 16:29 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2013-01-31 16:32 ` Paul Walmsley
2013-01-31 16:32 ` Paul Walmsley
2013-01-31 16:56 ` Paul Walmsley
2013-01-31 16:56 ` Paul Walmsley
2013-01-31 16:57 ` Paul Walmsley
2013-01-31 16:57 ` Paul Walmsley
2013-01-31 15:21 ` Paul Walmsley
2013-01-31 15:21 ` Paul Walmsley
2013-02-05 19:45 ` Jon Hunter
2013-02-05 19:45 ` Jon Hunter
2013-03-11 0:41 ` Paul Walmsley
2013-03-11 0:41 ` Paul Walmsley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=510A54F8.4090609@ti.com \
--to=rnayak@ti.com \
--cc=khilman@deeprootsystems.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@pwsan.com \
--cc=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
--cc=t-kristo@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.