* [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place
@ 2010-01-08 11:59 Abhijit Pagare
2010-01-08 14:01 ` Aguirre, Sergio
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Abhijit Pagare @ 2010-01-08 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
The return prevents the power domains from getting registered.
Hence removing it to allow the frameworks model to work.
Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pagare <abhijitpagare@ti.com>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>
---
Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP4430 simulator and ES1 Chip
Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP3430 SDP
Compiled for OMAP2430 and OMAP2420
arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 1 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
index a779240..6d1e97b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
@@ -362,7 +362,6 @@ void __init omap2_check_revision(void)
omap3_cpuinfo();
} else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) {
omap4_check_revision();
- return;
} else {
pr_err("OMAP revision unknown, please fix!\n");
}
--
1.5.4.7
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place
2010-01-08 11:59 [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place Abhijit Pagare
@ 2010-01-08 14:01 ` Aguirre, Sergio
2010-01-11 5:59 ` Pagare, Abhijit
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Aguirre, Sergio @ 2010-01-08 14:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Abhijit,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-omap-owner at vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
> owner at vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pagare, Abhijit
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 5:59 AM
> To: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> Cc: Pagare, Abhijit; Paul Walmsley
> Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power
> domain framework is in place
>
> The return prevents the power domains from getting registered.
> Hence removing it to allow the frameworks model to work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pagare <abhijitpagare@ti.com>
> Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>
> ---
>
> Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP4430 simulator and ES1 Chip
> Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP3430 SDP
> Compiled for OMAP2430 and OMAP2420
>
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 1 -
> 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> index a779240..6d1e97b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> @@ -362,7 +362,6 @@ void __init omap2_check_revision(void)
> omap3_cpuinfo();
> } else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) {
> omap4_check_revision();
> - return;
> } else {
> pr_err("OMAP revision unknown, please fix!\n");
> }
I don't have an OMAP4 with me, but I found something weird in your reported behaviour...
The code that was being skipped is:
/*
* OK, now we know the exact revision. Initialize omap_chip bits
* for powerdowmain and clockdomain code.
*/
if (cpu_is_omap243x()) {
/* Currently only supports 2430ES2.1 and 2430-all */
omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2430;
} else if (cpu_is_omap242x()) {
/* Currently only supports 2420ES2.1.1 and 2420-all */
omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2420;
} else if (cpu_is_omap3505() || cpu_is_omap3517()) {
omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430 | CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1;
} else if (cpu_is_omap343x()) {
omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430;
if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0)
omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES1;
else if (omap_rev() >= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0 &&
omap_rev() <= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1)
omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES2;
else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0)
omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_0;
else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1)
omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1;
else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0)
omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3630ES1;
} else {
pr_err("Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!\n");
}
And, in theory, in OMAP4 case, you SHOULDN'T be doing anything here, as there's no case for cpu_is_omap443x or similar. So you should be _only_ seeing a print in console saying: "Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!", right?
Is OMAP4 chip giving positive on cpu_is_omap343x() test then??
Regards,
Sergio
> --
> 1.5.4.7
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place
2010-01-08 14:01 ` Aguirre, Sergio
@ 2010-01-11 5:59 ` Pagare, Abhijit
2010-01-11 23:44 ` Tony Lindgren
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Pagare, Abhijit @ 2010-01-11 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Sergio,
I have taken care of that in my other patches, which I had posted earlier. They are not in mainline yet but are lined up for the next release. You can find the same here.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=126088474831309&w=2
Do let me know if you have any further questions.
Best Regards,
Abhijit Pagare
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aguirre, Sergio
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 PM
> To: Pagare, Abhijit; linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-
> kernel at lists.infradead.org
> Cc: Paul Walmsley
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power
> domain framework is in place
>
> Abhijit,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-omap-owner at vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
> > owner at vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pagare, Abhijit
> > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 5:59 AM
> > To: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> > Cc: Pagare, Abhijit; Paul Walmsley
> > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power
> > domain framework is in place
> >
> > The return prevents the power domains from getting registered.
> > Hence removing it to allow the frameworks model to work.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pagare <abhijitpagare@ti.com>
> > Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP4430 simulator and ES1 Chip
> > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP3430 SDP
> > Compiled for OMAP2430 and OMAP2420
> >
> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 1 -
> > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> > index a779240..6d1e97b 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> > @@ -362,7 +362,6 @@ void __init omap2_check_revision(void)
> > omap3_cpuinfo();
> > } else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) {
> > omap4_check_revision();
> > - return;
> > } else {
> > pr_err("OMAP revision unknown, please fix!\n");
> > }
>
> I don't have an OMAP4 with me, but I found something weird in your
> reported behaviour...
>
> The code that was being skipped is:
>
> /*
> * OK, now we know the exact revision. Initialize omap_chip bits
> * for powerdowmain and clockdomain code.
> */
> if (cpu_is_omap243x()) {
> /* Currently only supports 2430ES2.1 and 2430-all */
> omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2430;
> } else if (cpu_is_omap242x()) {
> /* Currently only supports 2420ES2.1.1 and 2420-all */
> omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2420;
> } else if (cpu_is_omap3505() || cpu_is_omap3517()) {
> omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430 | CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1;
> } else if (cpu_is_omap343x()) {
> omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430;
> if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0)
> omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES1;
> else if (omap_rev() >= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0 &&
> omap_rev() <= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1)
> omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES2;
> else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0)
> omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_0;
> else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1)
> omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1;
> else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0)
> omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3630ES1;
> } else {
> pr_err("Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!\n");
> }
>
> And, in theory, in OMAP4 case, you SHOULDN'T be doing anything here, as
> there's no case for cpu_is_omap443x or similar. So you should be _only_
> seeing a print in console saying: "Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!",
> right?
>
> Is OMAP4 chip giving positive on cpu_is_omap343x() test then??
>
> Regards,
> Sergio
> > --
> > 1.5.4.7
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place
2010-01-11 5:59 ` Pagare, Abhijit
@ 2010-01-11 23:44 ` Tony Lindgren
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tony Lindgren @ 2010-01-11 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
* Pagare, Abhijit <abhijitpagare@ti.com> [100110 21:57]:
> Sergio,
> I have taken care of that in my other patches, which I had posted earlier. They are not in mainline yet but are lined up for the next release. You can find the same here.
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=126088474831309&w=2
>
> Do let me know if you have any further questions.
Please update your other patch to include this change.
Regards,
Tony
>
> Best Regards,
> Abhijit Pagare
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Aguirre, Sergio
> > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 PM
> > To: Pagare, Abhijit; linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-
> > kernel at lists.infradead.org
> > Cc: Paul Walmsley
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power
> > domain framework is in place
> >
> > Abhijit,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: linux-omap-owner at vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
> > > owner at vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pagare, Abhijit
> > > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 5:59 AM
> > > To: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> > > Cc: Pagare, Abhijit; Paul Walmsley
> > > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power
> > > domain framework is in place
> > >
> > > The return prevents the power domains from getting registered.
> > > Hence removing it to allow the frameworks model to work.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pagare <abhijitpagare@ti.com>
> > > Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP4430 simulator and ES1 Chip
> > > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP3430 SDP
> > > Compiled for OMAP2430 and OMAP2420
> > >
> > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 1 -
> > > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> > > index a779240..6d1e97b 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> > > @@ -362,7 +362,6 @@ void __init omap2_check_revision(void)
> > > omap3_cpuinfo();
> > > } else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) {
> > > omap4_check_revision();
> > > - return;
> > > } else {
> > > pr_err("OMAP revision unknown, please fix!\n");
> > > }
> >
> > I don't have an OMAP4 with me, but I found something weird in your
> > reported behaviour...
> >
> > The code that was being skipped is:
> >
> > /*
> > * OK, now we know the exact revision. Initialize omap_chip bits
> > * for powerdowmain and clockdomain code.
> > */
> > if (cpu_is_omap243x()) {
> > /* Currently only supports 2430ES2.1 and 2430-all */
> > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2430;
> > } else if (cpu_is_omap242x()) {
> > /* Currently only supports 2420ES2.1.1 and 2420-all */
> > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2420;
> > } else if (cpu_is_omap3505() || cpu_is_omap3517()) {
> > omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430 | CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1;
> > } else if (cpu_is_omap343x()) {
> > omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430;
> > if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0)
> > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES1;
> > else if (omap_rev() >= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0 &&
> > omap_rev() <= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1)
> > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES2;
> > else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0)
> > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_0;
> > else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1)
> > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1;
> > else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0)
> > omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3630ES1;
> > } else {
> > pr_err("Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!\n");
> > }
> >
> > And, in theory, in OMAP4 case, you SHOULDN'T be doing anything here, as
> > there's no case for cpu_is_omap443x or similar. So you should be _only_
> > seeing a print in console saying: "Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!",
> > right?
> >
> > Is OMAP4 chip giving positive on cpu_is_omap343x() test then??
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sergio
> > > --
> > > 1.5.4.7
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
> > > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-01-11 23:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-01-08 11:59 [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place Abhijit Pagare
2010-01-08 14:01 ` Aguirre, Sergio
2010-01-11 5:59 ` Pagare, Abhijit
2010-01-11 23:44 ` Tony Lindgren
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).