From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 08/10] ARM: OMAP4: Prevent EMU power domain transitioning to OFF when in-use Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:38:49 -0500 Message-ID: <50046DC9.80203@ti.com> References: <1339104132-26885-1-git-send-email-jon-hunter@ti.com> <1339104132-26885-9-git-send-email-jon-hunter@ti.com> <500028B3.1040309@ti.com> <50045D17.9050704@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:56566 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752293Ab2GPTjD (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:39:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Walmsley Cc: linux-omap , linux-arm , Ming Lei , Will Deacon , Benoit Cousson , Kevin Hilman Hi Paul, On 07/16/2012 01:38 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hi Jon, >=20 > On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Jon Hunter wrote: >=20 >> Yes I see that makes sense. However, patch #7 has already changed th= e >> mapping of the flags. I had intended that patch #7 and #8 would be >> applied together. However, I could see that patch #7 can be taken ju= st >> to eliminate using the SW_SLEEP state. So basically, what I am sayin= g is >> does patch #7 have any value without #8? >=20 > Certainly not as much value as it had before. But my understanding, = which=20 > is possibly incorrect, matches what you wrote in patch #7's descripti= on: >=20 > "For OMAP4 devices, SW_SLEEP is equivalent to HW_AUTO and NO_SLEEP is= =20 > equivalent to SW_WKUP. The only difference between HW_AUTO and SW_SLE= EP=20 > for OMAP4 devices is that the PRM_IRQSTATUS_MPU.TRANSITION_ST interru= pt=20 > status is set in case of SW_SLEEP transition, and not set in case of=20 > HW_AUTO transition." >=20 > We don't use that PRM_IRQSTATUS_MPU.TRANSITION_ST interrupt bit. So = if=20 > SW_SLEEP and HW_AUTO really have identical meanings otherwise, then I= =20 > suppose we might as well use the one that does what we need with no=20 > extraneous side-effects? My recollection from a conversation with Be= no=EEt=20 > a few months ago was that this was his view as well. Yes that is my understanding too. So from that standpoint it is fine to keep. However, I just wanted to make sure I understood your thinking he= re. >> That's fine with me. We can always workaround such issues by adding = flags. >> >> I can give this a try this week and let you know how it goes. >=20 > Okay, great. No rush on my account. Ok. I have a few items on my plate that keep preventing me from getting back to this, but what to get this done. Jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html