[PATCH] ARM: imx: Enable cpuidle for i.MX6DL starting at 1.1

[PATCH] ARM: imx: Enable cpuidle for i.MX6DL starting at 1.1

[Leonard Crestez]

Enable cpuidle support on i.MX6DL starting from IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_1.

This also makes the code cleaner because 6q and 6dl actually have
different revision histories.

Signed-off-by: Bai Ping <ping.bai@nxp.com>
Signed-off-by: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>
---
 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)) {
-- 
2.7.4

[PATCH] ARM: imx: Enable cpuidle for i.MX6DL starting at 1.1

[Lucas Stach]

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 <ping.bai@nxp.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>
> ---
> ?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)) {

[PATCH] ARM: imx: Enable cpuidle for i.MX6DL starting at 1.1

[Leonard Crestez]

On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 13:44 +0200, Lucas Stach wrote:
> 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.

No, I do mean "1.1" for 6dl. It's a bit confusing because the code uses
> instead of >= for comparison.

This patch results in imx6q_cpuidle_init getting called if
(cpu_is_imx6dl() &&?imx_get_soc_revision() == IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_1);
without this patch it was skipped.

> > --- 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();

[PATCH] ARM: imx: Enable cpuidle for i.MX6DL starting at 1.1

[Lucas Stach]

Am Dienstag, den 10.10.2017, 14:57 +0300 schrieb Leonard Crestez:
> On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 13:44 +0200, Lucas Stach wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> No, I do mean "1.1" for 6dl. It's a bit confusing because the code uses
> > instead of >= for comparison.

Uh, right. Given that I totally misread this on a quick glance, I would
 prefer this to be >= ,but that's more a matter of personal taste.

> This patch results in imx6q_cpuidle_init getting called if
> (cpu_is_imx6dl() &&?imx_get_soc_revision() == IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_1);
> without this patch it was skipped.
> 
> > > --- 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.
> > > > ?	?*/

This comment is now out of sync with the code below.

> > > > -	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();