From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomi Valkeinen Subject: Re: context_loss_count error value Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 18:47:49 +0300 Message-ID: <1306252069.2194.28.camel@deskari> References: <1305704452.1834.12.camel@deskari> <87k4douvsd.fsf@ti.com> <1305718422.1834.23.camel@deskari> <877h9ot7c3.fsf@ti.com> <1305729690.30372.7.camel@deskari> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog115.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.238]:43929 "EHLO na3sys009aog115.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753070Ab1EXPrz (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 May 2011 11:47:55 -0400 Received: by bwj24 with SMTP id 24so5922794bwj.25 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 08:47:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1305729690.30372.7.camel@deskari> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Kevin Hilman Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 17:41 +0300, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 16:24 +0200, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > > Looking closer at the code, a zero return happens only when > > > > 1) no hwmod associated to omap_device > > 2) no power domain associated to hwmod > > 3) power domain has not (yet) lost context > > > > None of these are actually error conditions per-se, and in all cases, it > > indidates that context has not been lost (or we can't tell if context > > has been lost.) > > If the pm code cannot tell whether the context has been lost or not, the > driver must assume it has been lost, do you agree? If so, the driver > must handle zero return value differently, and always restore context. > > > So I think the current code is correct. > > How is it correct if it returns an error even if no error has happened > =)? Either the code or the documentation is wrong. > > How about the wrap-around case? Does the loss count go back to zero? Any conclusion on this? Tomi