From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "J, KEERTHY" Subject: Re: [Letux-kernel] [PATCH v3 3/3] arm: omap_hwmod disable ick autoidling when a hwmod requires that Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2019 12:09:48 +0530 Message-ID: References: <20190116220429.9136-1-andreas@kemnade.info> <20190116220429.9136-4-andreas@kemnade.info> <20190118154807.GV5544@atomide.com> <20190118181827.7163bee4@aktux> <20190118183630.GX5544@atomide.com> <20190118203832.3be7975e@aktux> <20190118204204.44db353f@aktux> <20190118194802.GZ5544@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20190118194802.GZ5544@atomide.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Tony Lindgren , Andreas Kemnade Cc: Discussions about the Letux Kernel , paul@pwsan.com, sboyd@kernel.org, mturquette@baylibre.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, t-kristo@ti.com, bcousson@baylibre.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On 1/19/2019 1:18 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Andreas Kemnade [190118 19:42]: >> On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 20:38:47 +0100 >> Andreas Kemnade wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 10:36:30 -0800 >>> Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> >>> [...] >>>> til the next workaround. >>>> >>>>> That flags also causes the iclk being enabled/disabled >>>>> manually. >>>> >>>> Yes but SWSUP_IDLE for the interface clock to me currently >>>> just means: >>>> >>>> "manually enable and disable ocp interface clock" >>>> >>> well, if we want to manually disable it and not automatically, >>> we have to disable autoidle or it will be automatically disabled. >>> >>> Disabling it manually when it is already auto-disabled (by autoidle) is >>> just practically a no-op towards the clock. >>> >>>> and with your changes it becomes: >>>> >>>> "manually enable and disable ocp interface clock and block >>>> autoidle while in use". >>>> >>>> So aren't we now changing the way things behave in general >>>> for SWSUP_IDLE? >>>> >>> Yes, we are, so proper testing is needed. But If I read those comments >>> it was always intended this way but not fully implemented because it >>> appeared to be more work like needing a usecounter (which my patchset >>> also adds) for that autoidle flag. >>> >> and there are quite few hwmods marked by this flag. >> And then there are those clocks marked by this flags (on am33xx) which >> do not have that autoidle feature at all, so the risk is not too high. > > Keerthy, can you please test this series on top of the > related clock patches with your am335x PM test cases? Can you point me to the clock series that needs to be tested along with this? - Keerthy > > Regards, > > Tony > >