From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rajendra Nayak Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: OMAP: hwmod: Look for hwmod/module level context lost count if supported Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:51:20 +0530 Message-ID: <4EEB37C0.1070307@ti.com> References: <1320317665-6381-1-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <1320317665-6381-4-git-send-email-rnayak@ti.com> <4ED52007.8010804@ti.com> <4ED85835.7080108@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog117.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.242]:39583 "EHLO na3sys009aog117.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751881Ab1LPMV1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Dec 2011 07:21:27 -0500 Received: by yhpp56 with SMTP id p56so3304109yhp.35 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 04:21:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Walmsley Cc: "Cousson, Benoit" , "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" , "tony@atomide.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" On Friday 16 December 2011 04:53 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Paul Walmsley wrote: > >> + * XXX Will not work correctly if the RM_*_CONTEXT register >> + * offset is 0 -- probably a flag should be used to avoid this >> + * situation, rather than testing @oh->prcm.omap4.context_offs. No >> + * return value. > > By the way, I'm also worried about this case. Am wondering if we should > add a flag here just to be sure, rather than testing the offset. > Thoughts? I am not sure if we even have any modules on OMAP4 which *do not* support module level context loss status and for which we need to fall back on pwrdm level status. So maybe we could even get rid of the check for a valid context_offset altogether and expect it to be populated for all modules as we do with the clkctrl offset. > > > - Paul