[PATCH] DaVinci: only poll EPCPR on DM644x and DM355

[sshtylyov@mvista.com (Sergei Shtylyov)]

Hello.

On 23.10.2011 18:18, Nori, Sekhar wrote:

>>> OMAP-L137 and OMAP-L138 have additional power domains for DSP
>>> and Shared RAM, but do not support powering them down.
>>      I haven't found such words in either OMAP-L137 or OMAP-L138 datasheets.
>> What they say is:
>>
>> <<
>> - On PSC0 PD1/PD_DSP Domain: Controls the sleep state for DSP L1 and L2 Memories
>> - On PSC1 PD1/PD_SHRAM Domain: Controls the sleep state for the 128K Shared RAM
>>   >>
>>
>>      Although "OMAP-L137 Application Processor System Reference Guide" indeed
>> said that powering off domain 1 is not supported.
> Right. There is a statement put in for shared ram as well.

    That's domain 1 too, just on PSC1. :-)

> "
> Currently powering down the RAMs via the pseudo/RAM power domain is not
> supported; therefore, these domains and the RAM should be left in their
> default power on state.
> "
>
> BTW, it looks like a separate "System Reference Guide" doesn't exist
> anymore and all the OMAP-L1x user guides have been consolidated to a
> single "Technical Reference Manual".

     Thanks, didn't know it...

>>      Actually, I was able to power down DSP/shared RAM domains on DA830 (at
>> least the state transition completed); although the domains were on, at least
>> after U-Boot. That's how I checked that the code powering up these domains
>> actually locks up on this SoC.
> Okay. Surely there must have been some corner case issues found
> which probably led the chip design team to make this feature
> unsupported.
>
>>> So, looks like the only SoC where PDSTAT might indicate a powered
>>> down domain is DM644x and existing code to looks alright for
>>> that SoC.
>>> At this time, it would be better to leave the code as-is and
>>> revisit it if/when a new SoC with programmable power domain
>>> support comes along.
>>      At least on DA830 power domains appear to be programmable. So I'd still
>> like the patch to be applied (I could drop DM355 check though).
> The problem would be that power domain state transition procedure isn't
> documented for any SoC other than DM644x. So, we can never be sure
> that just avoiding EPCR poll is sufficient for DA830. Software attempting
> this would be operating out of spec.
>
> So, how about allowing a power domain transition for DM644x and bailing
> out with a warning if a power domain on any other SoC is found to be off?
>
> This way users attempting this will be warned and fix their boot loader.

     Good idea. I probably won't be able to recast the patch soon as I'm 
on vacations and don't have Linux on my laptop (yet).

> Thanks,
> Sekhar

WBR, Sergei