From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
To: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
Cc: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@newoldbits.com>,
"Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@ti.com>,
linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] OMAP3: run the ASM sleep code from DDR
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:59:28 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87aadgcuu7.fsf@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4DFB1AAB.3090000@ti.com> (Santosh Shilimkar's message of "Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:43:15 +0530")
Hi Santosh,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> writes:
> On 6/17/2011 2:28 PM, Jean Pihet wrote:
>> Hi Santosh,
>>
>
> [....]
>
>
>>>>> -omap3_do_wfi:
>>>>> +do_WFI:
>>>>> + ldr r4, cm_clkstctrl_core @ read the CLKSTCTRL_CORE
>>>>> + ldr r5, [r4] @ read the contents of
>>>>> CLKSTCTRL_CORE
>>>>> + and r5, r5, #0x3
>>>>> + cmp r5, #0x3
>>>>> + beq omap3_do_wfi @ Jumpt to SRAM function
>>>>> + mov r1, #0
>>>>> + mcr p15, 0, r1, c7, c10, 4
>>>>> + mcr p15, 0, r1, c7, c10, 5
>>>>> +
>>>>> + wfi @ wait for interrupt
>>>>> +
>>>>> + ldmfd sp!, {r0-r12, pc} @ restore regs and return
>>>>
>
> [....]
>
>>>> Furthermore the main point of discussion to me is: is it advised to go
>>>> into wfi without self refresh requested? Can anyone confirm this?
>>>>
>>> You can provided you ensure that CORE and SDRC can't idle.
>>>
>>> I suggest you to create a patch against mainline and then we
>>> take it from there.
>>
>> Re-pushed an updated patch on l-o ML: '[PATCH] OMAP3: run the ASM
>> sleep code from DDR'.
>>
> Thanks. We needed this to be in mainline.
>
>> I deliberately omitted the code for WFI transition without
>> self-refresh because of the reasons mentioned here above and repeated
>> here (quoting myself):
>> "The DDR self refresh is enabled at each WFI but not necessarily hit.
>> It is actually triggered by the CORE idle request which depends on the
>> settings, the dependencies, the HW states... For example the CORE
>> state depends on the MPU state so if the MPU stays ON running
>> instructions the CORE will stay ON as well.
>>
>> Also the code in wait_sdrc_ok will exit quicker if the CORE DPLL is
>> already locked, e.g. if the CORE did not hit a low power state. Since
>> the actual CORE hit state is unknow after wake-up from WFI the
>> wait_sdrc_ok code always run at wake-up from MPU RET.
>> "
>>
> What is written here is completely right and I never said
> anything against it. What I mentioned is if the CORE
> clock-domain is under HW supervision, SDRC can idle
> and hence the DDR can enter into self refresh.
>
> Ofocurse on OMAP3 all clock-domain has static deps set
> and hence above assumption is ok. The update I mentioned
> in the code will make it complete even without auto-dep
> assumption.
>
> Anyways if that is the only point we are contesting, I
> am OK to not have that change part of the patch because
> it would work becasuse of auto-deps.
Sorry I haven't followed the whole thread...
Can you please clarify what would need to be updated if auto-deps were
removed? We are hoping to remove them when we have full hwmod
conversion.
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-17 15:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-13 16:19 [RFC/PATCH] OMAP3: run the ASM sleep code from DDR jean.pihet
2011-01-24 14:29 ` Jean Pihet
2011-01-27 10:13 ` Vishwanath Sripathy
2011-01-27 13:50 ` Jean Pihet
2011-01-29 17:14 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-01-30 5:57 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-01-31 10:36 ` Jean Pihet
2011-01-31 11:00 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-02-01 11:23 ` Jean Pihet
2011-02-01 11:31 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-02-04 11:39 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-16 15:30 ` Pihet-XID, Jean
2011-06-16 16:11 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-17 8:58 ` Jean Pihet
2011-06-17 9:13 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-06-17 15:59 ` Kevin Hilman [this message]
2011-06-17 16:50 ` Santosh Shilimkar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87aadgcuu7.fsf@ti.com \
--to=khilman@ti.com \
--cc=b-cousson@ti.com \
--cc=jean.pihet@newoldbits.com \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox