Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP1: PM: fix some build warnings on 1510-only Kconfigs

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* Jon Hunter <jgchunter@gmail.com> [150212 04:37]:
> 
> On 02/12/2015 11:26 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> > 
> > On 02/11/2015 09:14 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >> * Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com> [150211 13:03]:
> >>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> * Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com> [150210 18:28]:
> >>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Jon Hunter wrote:
> >>>>>> On 07/02/2015 00:23, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Unfortunately, there is not a single TRM for the omap5910 but individual 
> >>>>>> documents for each chapter in the original TRM. Check out the "OMAP5910 
> >>>>>> Dual-Core Processor Timer Reference Guide" and possibly the "OMAP5910 
> >>>>>> Dual-Core Processor Clock Generation and System Reset Management 
> >>>>>> Reference Guide"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The omap15xx/5910 did have a 32k timer but as you can see it appears it
> >>>>>> was never supported by the kernel for this device (not sure why). I do
> >>>>>> recall that there is some errata regarding the 32k timer, if you look at
> >>>>>> the omap5910 errata document and search for 32k you should find it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK thanks for the context.  I probably am not going to investigate adding 
> >>>>> support for this timer on OMAP1510/5910 - am primarily trying to avoid 
> >>>>> causing a regression on the existing platforms.
> >>>>
> >>>> At least I've never seen the 32KiHz timer registers in any 15xx
> >>>> documentation. Jon are you sure you're not mixing up 5910 (15xx)
> >>>> and 5912 (16xx)?
> >>>
> >>> It's documented in the OMAP5910 Timer Reference Guide (SPRU682A) Section 3 
> >>> "32-kHz Timer", at the link Jon mentioned.  Have not checked the errata 
> >>> that Jon mentioned though.
> >>
> >> Interesting. Looks like it's the same as on 16xx at 0xfffb9000.
> >> AFAIK that never worked on 15xx. Or maybe the issue was that 15xx
> >> is missing the constantly running 32KiHz counter making the timer
> >> unusable from PM point of view as the clockevent alone is not enough.
> >>
> >>> Regarding the patch: I'd suggest keeping the compilation warning fixes 
> >>> (which was the original purpose of the patch) from anything that changes 
> >>> the logic too much.   That way if there's an error in the patch that 
> >>> changes the logic and it needs to be reverted, it won't also revert the 
> >>> warning fixes.
> >>
> >> Makes sense to me.
> > 
> > Yes that's fine with me as well, I don't wish to over complicate
> > matters. I have a couple minor comments though and will respond to the
> > latest patch rev.
> 
> Actually, nevermind the latest version is fine with me. Jon

Applying the second version into omap-for-v4.1/fixes-not-urgent.

Regards,

Tony