From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] ARM: OMAP2+: Drop bogus wkup domain oswr setting Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 07:40:53 -0700 Message-ID: <20191016144053.GC5610@atomide.com> References: <20191010001224.41826-1-tony@atomide.com> <20191010001224.41826-3-tony@atomide.com> <20191013150744.GD13278@amd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191013150744.GD13278@amd> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Pavel Machek Cc: Merlijn Wajer , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Sebastian Reichel , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org * Pavel Machek [191013 15:08]: > Hi! > > > The wkup domain is always on and does not have logic off setting. This > > got accidentally added by commit f74297dd9354 ("ARM: OMAP2+: Make sure > > LOGICRETSTATE bits are not cleared") but is harmless. > > > > Cc: Merlijn Wajer > > Cc: Pavel Machek > > Cc: Sebastian Reichel > > Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren > > --- > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c | 3 +-- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c > > @@ -137,8 +137,7 @@ static int __init pwrdms_setup(struct powerdomain *pwrdm, void *unused) > > * smsc911x at least if per hits retention during idle. > > */ > > if (!strncmp(pwrdm->name, "core", 4) || > > - !strncmp(pwrdm->name, "l4per", 5) || > > - !strncmp(pwrdm->name, "wkup", 4)) > > + !strncmp(pwrdm->name, "l4per", 5)) > > pwrdm_set_logic_retst(pwrdm, PWRDM_POWER_RET); > > This is rather theoretical, but if the powerdomain is called > "corelation-not-causation", do you still want the if() to trigger? No need to if no writable register bits exists if I understand your theoretical comment right :) Regards, Tony