From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/28] OMAP3: PM: GPMC context save/restore Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:58:04 -0500 Message-ID: <4ACA33AC.4070704@ti.com> References: <1254441538-9257-1-git-send-email-khilman@deeprootsystems.com> <1254441538-9257-2-git-send-email-khilman@deeprootsystems.com> <4AC76454.20605@gmail.com> <87ws39yciw.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:55662 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754293AbZJER6n (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:58:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87ws39yciw.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Kevin Hilman Cc: Nishanth Menon , "Nayak, Rajendra" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" Kevin Hilman had written, on 10/05/2009 12:29 PM, the following: > Nishanth Menon writes: >>> + gpmc_context.cs_context[i].is_valid = >>> + (gpmc_cs_read_reg(i, GPMC_CS_CONFIG7)) >>> + & GPMC_CONFIG7_CSVALID; >>> + if (gpmc_context.cs_context[i].is_valid) { >>> + gpmc_context.cs_context[i].config1 = >>> + gpmc_cs_read_reg(i, GPMC_CS_CONFIG1); >>> + gpmc_context.cs_context[i].config2 = >>> + gpmc_cs_read_reg(i, GPMC_CS_CONFIG2); >>> + gpmc_context.cs_context[i].config3 = >>> + gpmc_cs_read_reg(i, GPMC_CS_CONFIG3); >>> + gpmc_context.cs_context[i].config4 = >>> + gpmc_cs_read_reg(i, GPMC_CS_CONFIG4); >>> + gpmc_context.cs_context[i].config5 = >>> + gpmc_cs_read_reg(i, GPMC_CS_CONFIG5); >>> + gpmc_context.cs_context[i].config6 = >>> + gpmc_cs_read_reg(i, GPMC_CS_CONFIG6); >>> + gpmc_context.cs_context[i].config7 = >>> + gpmc_cs_read_reg(i, GPMC_CS_CONFIG7); >>> + } >>> >> here is a theoretical bug: >> 1: GPMC, 1, 2, 3 4 5 configured 6 7 not configured. >> 2. Save and restore 1: save and restore variables which are static will >> contain 1-5 and not 6&7 >> 3. next I disable 2,3 >> 3. save will save 1,4,5 BUT my variable will contain 1,2,3,4,5 -> >> restore will rename 2,3 (which I did not intend).. > > Not sure I follow the problem here. What do you mean by "rename". > The saved context will have values for 2 and 3, but the is_valid > flag will not be set, so they shouldn't be used. My bad.. s/rename/enable/ for 2,3 ->definitely not something I would like to see. > > Rajendra was the original author of these, so maybe I'm not fully > understanding here, but disabling a GPMC looks to me like it > will disable both the save and restore. Yes, anyone else has an opinion, please pop them here. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon