RE: [PATCH 01/17] PM: fix suspend control for IVA2

Girish S G
2009-10-19T18:26:59Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tero.Kristo@nokia.com [mailto:Tero.Kristo@nokia.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 4:23 AM
> To: girishsg@ti.com; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 01/17] PM: fix suspend control for IVA2

> >
> >Agree, IVA2 pwrdm is handled autonomously by bridge. I think
> >this needs some additional change to remove all the redundant
> >configuration of iva pwdm. There are some inconsistencies like,
> > - Say enable_off_mode is disabled. Before doing system
> >wide suspend if DSP hibernates then IVA2 will be put to OFF. In that
> >case we have IVA2 going to OFF and other domains in RET. This
> >might not be an issue, but it's bad from sytem PM framework integrity
> >perspective.
>
> This is an issue with bridge driver, and I am not sure how this should be fixed. Currently bridge
> driver does not care whether off mode is enabled or not.

I have seen bridge considering enable_off_mode flag in suspend/resume path. But while hibernation (idle timeout) it goes to OFF,
irrespective of the OFF flag.

>
> > - enable_off_mode->omap3_pm_off_mode_enable will also
> >touch IVA2 power domain next state. This we don't want to do if dsp
> >bridge is already taking care of IVA2.
> >
> >IMO, we need to have some mechanism wherein if bridge PM takes
> >care of IVA then PM framework should not configure the IVA
> >powerstate. It should only do if bridge PM is disabled.
>
> Should we have a Kconfig option for this? Like CONFIG_OMAP3_BRIDGE_PM, and disable all iva2 controls
> from pm34xx.c if it is enabled? Otherwise control IVA2 as currently done.

Yes, this looks ok to me.

-Girish