From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano)
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:15:23 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] ux500 : decouple/recouple gic from the PRCMU
In-Reply-To: <4F30F594.7090607@stericsson.com>
References: <1328270849-22324-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
 <4F2F9B2C.8030009@stericsson.com> <4F2FDF54.8080701@linaro.org>
 <4F30E324.4000005@stericsson.com> <4F30ED55.6080908@linaro.org>
 <4F30F594.7090607@stericsson.com>
Message-ID: <4F3131FB.90809@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 02/07/2012 10:57 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 10:22 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 02/07/2012 09:39 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote:
>>> On 02/06/2012 03:10 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> On 02/06/2012 10:19 AM, Rickard Andersson wrote:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> Our comments:
>>>> Thanks Rickard and Jonas for your comments.
>>>>
>>>>> - function names don't match commit comment disable/enable vs
>>>>> recouple/decouple. Decouple is a better name than disable, because GIC
>>>>> is not really disabled it is just disconnected.
>>>> Ok, that makes sense.
>>>>
>>>>> - there is no reason to place these functions inside the
>>>>> db8500-prcmu.c
>>>>> file. There is so much stuff in the PRCMU register base so we can not
>>>>> have everything in one file. Why not have it as it is?
>>>> Why spread the prcmu code when it is related to the prcmu ?
>>>>
>>>> Linus ? What do you think ?
>>>>
>>>>> - why the gic_mask function?
>>>> Because the register has 31 bits reserved which could be used later
>>>> without modifying this function.
>>> This is will most likely not happen. If that happens we could add that
>>> function then. We should remove it for now.
>>>>> - The original code has been updated and now looks like this:
>>>> That is the same code, except the while loop where, if this code
>>>> assumption is correct, means we will do only one iteration in the loop.
>>> Yes, but in theory you can be stuck forever in that loop, so please
>>> remove the loop.
>> Mmmh, can you elaborate please ? I think a comment and/or an error
>> should be returned in this case, no ?
>>
> We do not need the loop. PRCMU FW does decouple of the GIC and if they
> for some reason does that at the same time (they should not) we will be
> stuck.

Sorry, but I still don't get it. What is "they" ? Do you mean one cpu 
can decouples the cpu while the other cpu recouples it ?

Taking the routine, why is needed the "read" if we don't care the return 
value ?

void ux500_pm_gic_decouple(void)
{
         prcmu_write_masked(PRCM_A9_MASK_REQ,
                            PRCM_A9_MASK_REQ_PRCM_A9_MASK_REQ,
                            PRCM_A9_MASK_REQ_PRCM_A9_MASK_REQ);

         (void)prcmu_read(PRCM_A9_MASK_REQ);

         udelay(GIC_FREEZE_DELAY); /* Wait for the GIC to freeze */
}

Thanks
   -- Daniel

-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog