From: Maxime Petazzoni <mpetazzoni@mvista.com>
To: "Premi, Sanjeev" <premi@ti.com>
Cc: "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: VDD1 voltage after resume from idle
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:29:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091120162933.GC2354@mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B85A65D85D7EB246BE421B3FB0FBB59301DE5EE5BC@dbde02.ent.ti.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1280 bytes --]
Hi,
* Premi, Sanjeev <premi@ti.com> [2009-11-20 21:17:04]:
> I am facing a strange problem on OMAP3EVM after resuming from idle.
> When using OPP5, the VDD1 voltage ramps to 1.35V.
>
> However, when i go thru the idle/wakeup cycle, the voltage never
> ramps back to 1.35V but stays at 1.20V.
I'm seeing some interesting behavior with the OPP values here, too, with
suspend/resume. I'm using SRF based PM and CPUFREQ. Here's what happens:
When changing the CPU frequency through the scaling_setfreq knob of
CPUFREQ, the vdd{1,2}_opp values are updated accordingly. After a
suspend/resume cycles, the OPPs return to their pre-suspend values, all
is fine.
But when changing the OPP values by hand through the vdd{1,2}_opp knobs,
the CPU frequency is changed accordingly, which is expected. But after a
suspend/resume cycle, the OPP values return to the value CPUFREQ set
them to (which may be different than the default OPP values of 3).
Is this the normal behavior? Is cpufreq authoritative on the OPP values
on resume? Or should it follow whatever value was manually set before
suspending?
Thanks,
- Maxime
PS: if I was not clear, I can provide a console log that may be more
explicit--just ask.
--
Maxime Petazzoni
Linux kernel & software dev
MontaVista Software, Inc
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-11-20 16:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-11-20 15:47 VDD1 voltage after resume from idle Premi, Sanjeev
2009-11-20 15:48 ` Menon, Nishanth
2009-11-20 15:54 ` Premi, Sanjeev
2009-11-20 15:59 ` Menon, Nishanth
2009-11-20 16:08 ` Premi, Sanjeev
2009-11-20 16:29 ` Maxime Petazzoni [this message]
2009-11-20 18:15 ` Premi, Sanjeev
2009-11-20 19:34 ` Premi, Sanjeev
2009-11-23 13:37 ` Premi, Sanjeev
2009-11-20 18:29 ` Kevin Hilman
2009-11-20 18:31 ` Maxime Petazzoni
2009-11-20 18:55 ` Jean Pihet
2009-11-20 19:11 ` Kevin Hilman
2009-11-20 19:19 ` Jean Pihet
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091120162933.GC2354@mvista.com \
--to=mpetazzoni@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=premi@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox