From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.andi.de1.cc (mail.andi.de1.cc [178.238.236.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB47A206E7C; Fri, 8 Nov 2024 17:41:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.238.236.174 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731087696; cv=none; b=RwH9Hp+Qzt6VAmQhYaE2GtRPQHR5kFO4kA2LhjXSXthpYqWIxYCpr1yJzuQDXhBV+glkiv3DzgrFACKpdj6eajBP6fxs2G1nEICzDDV1nArVV2MwTuGNhTHFXwKbkhASQR4VAshW7pRYEc2d+8LUQXum4owfMEOh8cmcsFHOLs0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731087696; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xTBJQ3DHiqjQGaHvCuOnOqcxQvtxoUV/KnD4Xz/Z1lM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=cV0zAVEqcWWaxZSlz97V61G+gKrj2zqHXnzxQKh2SG1rcu9o/VbRrdU+TB0P1tpDpVs5UM0zalRbnpYalb7IG9rEXm8YhqWxrvuqLKk7I9MUXGePFMR9xZUp7ajHWqYLkgYZkRCRRhoMBGxJR7vaJYymHT4hJJ06f6jl3A4K7tI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kemnade.info; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kemnade.info; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kemnade.info header.i=@kemnade.info header.b=E3Bi/Sjy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=178.238.236.174 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=kemnade.info Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kemnade.info Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kemnade.info header.i=@kemnade.info header.b="E3Bi/Sjy" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kemnade.info; s=20220719; h=References:In-Reply-To:Cc:From:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=wBB+8hCTyd2m7Z6GTXu25olXNiRTxVMEW+Jjw45zRYQ=; b=E3Bi/SjyYTGX8PGyP5yMVmcZEi Vk14b7t/g8S6znduaPSiyT8TdaF5dglB1h3Cq2qdgdbC+ZK2VTTAyrk7hlltdu6qEq8mgkpzyn2kL EsAOmn+ExKStIAXH+GKT+4bb7mQYlGcIq1cnRIpXPrf1XWwf+9hU+fNlRlv2Tot0ZP5RUUpXweMmv Uh1/5SZUXcLaVIWKJVD3f0ckM+SAuYPB9ly4UY1r3Db6oLUczjudKiIs1iXEDPgK1BuGfSmwdN1rf 9uXVYdnaaxTB5lIBYRlu9PuRKdWhr7t5nOfPF8y0DuI7+MT0uoTegyvgRb3T8yxT9OQsJpCu10OjI 1Hut1v2A==; Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2024 18:41:18 +0100 From: Andreas Kemnade To: Roger Quadros Cc: tony@atomide.com, robh@kernel.org, krzk+dt@kernel.org, conor+dt@kernel.org, hns@goldelico.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aaro.koskinen@iki.fi, khilman@baylibre.com, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: ti/omap: gta04: fix pm issues caused by spi module Message-ID: <20241108184118.5ee8114c@akair> In-Reply-To: References: <20241107225100.1803943-1-andreas@kemnade.info> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.38; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Am Fri, 8 Nov 2024 14:42:14 +0200 schrieb Roger Quadros : > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap3-gta04.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap3-gta04.dtsi > > index 3661340009e7a..11f8af34498b1 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap3-gta04.dtsi > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/ti/omap/omap3-gta04.dtsi > > @@ -612,19 +612,23 @@ &i2c3 { > > }; > > > > &mcspi1 { > > - status = "disabled"; > > But according to commit a622310f7f01 ("ARM: dts: gta04: fix excess dma channel usage"), > these mcspi modules are not used. So it doesn't make sense to enable them even if it > seems to solve the power management issue? > They are not used, if they are just disabled, kernel does not touch them, so if it is there, the kernel can handle pm. At least as long as it is not under ti,sysc. There are probably cleaner solutions for this, but for a CC: stable I would prefer something less invasive. I can try a ti-sysc based fix in parallel. > Does bootloader leave the mcspi modules in a unwanted state? Or at least something related to them. As said, for the blamed patch I checked only for CM_IDLEST1_CORE and CM_FCLKEN1_CORE. > Would it make sense for the bus driver to explicitly turn off all modules? Hmm, not very clear what you mean. AFAIK everything below ti-sysc gets turned off if a disable is in the child node. Explicitly disabling such stuff in the dtsi and enable it in the board dts sound sane to me at first glance. I think it is a common pattern. The question is whether that causes confusion with not ti-sysc stuff. Well, having status=okay everywhere in the dts should not harm. But as said for a regression fix some overhaul affecting every device is out of scope. Regards, Andreas