From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] OMAP3 PM: move omap3 sleep to ddr Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:27:52 -0800 Message-ID: <20101118182752.GI9264@atomide.com> References: <1290091906-32539-1-git-send-email-j-pihet@ti.com> <1290091906-32539-2-git-send-email-j-pihet@ti.com> <87tyjey6h3.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <4CE55A88.6010300@ti.com> <20101118175215.GE9264@atomide.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]:21656 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754625Ab0KRS16 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:27:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Jean Pihet Cc: Nishanth Menon , Kevin Hilman , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Vishwanath Sripathy , Jean Pihet-XID * Jean Pihet [101118 10:06]: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > About the DPLL lock: > 1) wait_sdrc_ok is only called when back from the non-OFF modes, > 2) I checked that when running wait_sdrc_ok the CORE is already out of > idle and the DPLL is already locked. Note: l-o code has no support for > the voltages OFF and the external clocks OFF. > > What to conclude from 1) and 2)? In my test setup ot looks like > wait_sdrc_ok is of no use, but I agree this a premature conclusion. Yeah we should figure out in which cases wait_sdrc_ok is needed. BTW, are you sure you're hitting core idle in your tests? Regards, Tony