From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: l.stach@pengutronix.de (Lucas Stach) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:44:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: imx: Enable cpuidle for i.MX6DL starting at 1.1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1507635857.2745.12.camel@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Am Dienstag, den 10.10.2017, 14:20 +0300 schrieb Leonard Crestez: > Enable cpuidle support on i.MX6DL starting from > IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_1. Did you mean 1.0 here and in the subject? This would make sense AFAICS, and is also in line with what the code change does. > This also makes the code cleaner because 6q and 6dl actually have > different revision histories. > > > Signed-off-by: Bai Ping > > Signed-off-by: Leonard Crestez > --- > ?arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c | 3 ++- > ?1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c > index 45801b2..ef0c949 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c > @@ -374,7 +374,8 @@ static void __init imx6q_init_late(void) > > ? ?* WAIT mode is broken on TO 1.0 and 1.1, so there is no point > > ? ?* to run cpuidle on them. > > ? ?*/ > > - if (imx_get_soc_revision() > IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_1) > > + if ((cpu_is_imx6q() && imx_get_soc_revision() > IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_1) || > > + ????(cpu_is_imx6dl() && imx_get_soc_revision() > IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_0)) > > ? imx6q_cpuidle_init(); > ? > > ? if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM_IMX6Q_CPUFREQ)) {