From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] OMAP3: PM: Ensure MUSB block can idle when driver not loaded Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 08:04:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20090518150423.GP19742@atomide.com> References: <1242412851-16606-2-git-send-email-khilman@deeprootsystems.com> <1242412851-16606-3-git-send-email-khilman@deeprootsystems.com> <1242412851-16606-4-git-send-email-khilman@deeprootsystems.com> <1242412851-16606-5-git-send-email-khilman@deeprootsystems.com> <1242412851-16606-6-git-send-email-khilman@deeprootsystems.com> <1242412851-16606-7-git-send-email-khilman@deeprootsystems.com> <1242412851-16606-8-git-send-email-khilman@deeprootsystems.com> <1242412851-16606-9-git-send-email-khilman@deeprootsystems.com> <20090518131611.GG3067@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <87fxf2bh3b.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.71]:59884 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751101AbZERPEg (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2009 11:04:36 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87fxf2bh3b.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Kevin Hilman Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver * Kevin Hilman [090518 07:50]: > Russell King - ARM Linux writes: > > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:40:48AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> Otherwise, bootloaders may leave MUSB in a state which prevents > >> retention. > > > > Hmm, so what happens if a boot loader has touched this MUSB thing, but > > the kernel which is being run doesn't have CONFIG_USB_MUSB_SOC enabled? > > Then the OMAP will not be able to hit retention. > > That Makefile change happened after this series was initially made. > I think we should change the Makefile back to always compile usb-musb.c > and move the #ifdef CONFIG_USB_MUSB_SOC into usb-musb.c > > Tony, any objections? Sounds good to me, I like patches that make things behave in a predictable way. We already have enough of these mysterious problems where "the same kernel behaves in a different way on my board" when some registers are only tweaked in the bootloader. Regards, Tony