Re: [BUG] broken mixer after second resume from mem

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>]

On 14.10.2015 15:50, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 14 October 2015 at 07:55, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> wrote:
>> On 13.10.2015 19:25, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> have been hunting down a bug on exynos5250-snow which caused both HDMI
>>> and LVDS output to be broken after the second resume (with suspend to
>>> mem, but not to idle).
>>>
>>> What I have found is that when powering down the DISP1 power domain
>>> while suspending for the second time, the contents of the SRC_TOP3
>>> register change from 0x1110550 to 0x1110500. IIUIC, this means that
>>> ACLK_200_DISP1 is reparented to XXTI.
>>>
>>> When the CPU comes up again, that register contains 0x1110550 again, but
>>> it's set to 0x1110500 by the code that restores clk registers when resuming:
>>>
>>> First suspend:
>>>
>>> exynos_pd_power: SRC_TOP3 1110550 disp1-power-domain@100440A0 - before
>>> exynos_pd_power: SRC_TOP3 1110550 disp1-power-domain@100440A0 - after
>>> exynos5250_clk_suspend: SRC_TOP3 1110550
>>> exynos5250_clk_resume: SRC_TOP3 1110550 - before
>>> exynos5250_clk_resume: SRC_TOP3 1110550 - after
>>> exynos_pd_power: SRC_TOP3 1110550 disp1-power-domain@100440A0 - before
>>> exynos_pd_power: SRC_TOP3 1110550 disp1-power-domain@100440A0 - after
>>>
>>>
>>> Second suspend:
>>>
>>> exynos_pd_power: SRC_TOP3 1110550 disp1-power-domain@100440A0 - before
>>> exynos_pd_power: SRC_TOP3 1110500 disp1-power-domain@100440A0 - after
>>> exynos5250_clk_suspend: SRC_TOP3 1110500
>>> exynos5250_clk_resume: SRC_TOP3 1110550 - before
>>> exynos5250_clk_resume: SRC_TOP3 1110500 - after
>>> exynos_pd_power: SRC_TOP3 1110500 disp1-power-domain@100440A0 - before
>>> exynos_pd_power: SRC_TOP3 1110500 disp1-power-domain@100440A0 - after
>>>
>>
>> I am assuming you are talking about current linux-next. The actual
>> reparent happens in exynos_pd_power which would indicate the exynos pd
>> clock reparenting code. However the domains for Exynos5250 don't have
>> any clocks set up for reparenting... which actually might be the issue.
>> These clocks should be probably reparented - as it is done for other
>> platforms - look at 5420 example (they are glitch-free on both of SoCs).
>>
>> I've seen a such issues before. The problem is that after some time I
>> tend to forget the needed workaround and solution. :)
>>
>> Try with reparenting necessary clocks. On other platform for some kind
>> of similar issue the reset was required for the IP block - DECON
>> (actually the mux could not stabilize there which can be observed in one
>> of STATUS registers for mux).
>>
>> Let me know if explanation above is not detailed enough.
> 
> Thanks for the reply, I looked at downstream and saw that two clocks
> are being reparented and that seems to fix things. Will send a patch
> later today.
> 

Great! Happy to hear that!

Best regards,
Krzysztof