From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roger Quadros Subject: Re: omap4 ehci sporadic resume issue Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 17:42:34 +0300 Message-ID: <51D2E6DA.6030000@ti.com> References: <51CC2755.2030505@amarulasolutions.com> <51CC454A.1040104@ti.com> <20130627141704.GF12956@panicking> <51CC5105.4070301@ti.com> <20130627175623.GB21364@panicking> <20130627192413.GA14115@panicking> <20130628113314.GA25536@panicking> <51CD7783.8030907@ti.com> <20130628164751.GA1281@panicking> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:43166 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751281Ab3GBOmj (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:42:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130628164751.GA1281@panicking> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Trimarchi Cc: Ruslan Bilovol , USB list , Linux OMAP Mailing List , Alan Stern On 06/28/2013 07:47 PM, Michael Trimarchi wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:46:11PM +0300, Roger Quadros wrote: >> On 06/28/2013 02:33 PM, Michael Trimarchi wrote: >>> Hi Roger >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:07:11PM +0300, Ruslan Bilovol wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Michael Trimarchi >>>> wrote: >> >>>> Do you have locks around this software workaround? >>>> The patch I did against 3.4 linux kernel may be helpful for >>>> you in such case: http://review.omapzoom.org/28515 >>>> Another patch extends this WA for all OMAP4 SoCs: >>>> http://review.omapzoom.org/31108 >>> >>> I'm testing using pm_test and stop to core (5ms and not 5 seconds) (usb suspend cycle are done correctly) so >>> the problem could be: >>> >>> 1) SAR usb context restore. I have applied the SAR workaround but the core doesn't go in full retantion >>> could be it a problem? >> >> If core doesn't go in to OFF then SAR will not come into play. Are you still affected by the >> issue if OFF mode is disabled? If yes then it probably is not related to SAR. >> >>> >>> 2) idle status of ulpis pins? >> >> Yes this can be possible. >> >> When you said earlier that the problem doesn't happen when one of the ULPIs is used >> did you try both of them individually. e.g. case 1: port 1 only enabled, >> case 2: port 2 only enabled. >> >> Did it work in both the cases? > > Yes, so I don't think could be a problem of ulpi pins and why this happen > on both at the same time? Seems more connected to somenthing else. > Right. Seems to be related to two things. OFF Mode and 2 ports being used simultaneously. I'm not sure how to go about fixing this. How important is OFF Mode for your application. Can you keep it always disabled? cheers, -roger