From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucas Stach Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: imx: Enable cpuidle for i.MX6DL starting at 1.1 Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:26:05 +0200 Message-ID: <1507638365.2745.15.camel@pengutronix.de> References: <1507635857.2745.12.camel@pengutronix.de> <1507636655.20816.8.camel@nxp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.4.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:60341 "EHLO metis.ext.4.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755349AbdJJM0K (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:26:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1507636655.20816.8.camel@nxp.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Leonard Crestez , Shawn Guo , Fabio Estevam Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Daniel Lezcano , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kernel@pengutronix.de, Bai Ping Am Dienstag, den 10.10.2017, 14:57 +0300 schrieb Leonard Crestez: > On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 13:44 +0200, Lucas Stach wrote: > > Am Dienstag, den 10.10.2017, 14:20 +0300 schrieb Leonard Crestez: > > > Enable cpuidle support on i.MX6DL starting from > > > IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_1. > > Did you mean 1.0 here and in the subject? This would make sense AFAICS, > >  and is also in line with what the code change does. > > No, I do mean "1.1" for 6dl. It's a bit confusing because the code uses > > instead of >= for comparison. Uh, right. Given that I totally misread this on a quick glance, I would prefer this to be >= ,but that's more a matter of personal taste. > This patch results in imx6q_cpuidle_init getting called if > (cpu_is_imx6dl() && imx_get_soc_revision() == IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_1); > without this patch it was skipped. > > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c > > > @@ -374,7 +374,8 @@ static void __init imx6q_init_late(void) > > > > > > > >    * WAIT mode is broken on TO 1.0 and 1.1, so there is no point > > > >    * to run cpuidle on them. > > > >    */ This comment is now out of sync with the code below. > > > > - if (imx_get_soc_revision() > IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_1) > > > > + if ((cpu_is_imx6q() && imx_get_soc_revision() > IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_1) || > > > > +     (cpu_is_imx6dl() && imx_get_soc_revision() > IMX_CHIP_REVISION_1_0)) > > > >   imx6q_cpuidle_init();