From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 05:55:09 +0000 Subject: [RFC PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: imx: Add mx5 cpuidle implmentation In-Reply-To: References: <1323846126-7516-1-git-send-email-rob.lee@linaro.org> <1323846126-7516-3-git-send-email-rob.lee@linaro.org> <20111222175027.GG29622@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Message-ID: <20120105055508.GD11867@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 05:35:39PM -0600, Rob Lee wrote: > On 22 December 2011 11:50, Mark Brown > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 01:02:06AM -0600, Robert Lee wrote: > >> + ? ? clk_enable(&gpc_dvfs_clk); > > Should these enables be in the cpuidle code? ?The device appears to have > > been working fine without them thus far... ?Alternatively, if they > > should be on anyway does this need to be split out and sent as a bug > > fix? > This clock is used by the existing pm_suspend code for i.MX51 and > other future code being worked on. Since it uses extremely minimal > power and is required to be enabled during low power modes, it seemed > cleanest to just enable it during clock init. But I forgot to remove > it from it's enabling from i.MX51 pm_suspend code so I can do that for > v3. Sounds like it's worth splitting out and getting it merged as quickly as possible then? It wasn't the code I was querying, it was the way it is being merged.