[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87obwr1n9i.fsf@ti.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:27:53 -0700
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>
To: Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.ramirez@...com>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>,
Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
lo <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
lak <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
lm <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] OMAP3/4: iommu: adapt to runtime pm
Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.ramirez@...com> writes:
> Use runtime PM functionality interfaced with hwmod enable/idle
> functions, to replace direct clock operations, reset and sysconfig
> handling.
>
> Tidspbridge uses a macro removed with this patch, for now the value
> is hardcoded to avoid breaking compilation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.ramirez@...com>
Looks like a good cleanup.
I agree with the comments from Myungjoo, and have a question below..
[...]
> @@ -821,9 +820,7 @@ static irqreturn_t iommu_fault_handler(int irq, void *data)
> if (!obj->refcount)
> return IRQ_NONE;
>
> - clk_enable(obj->clk);
> errs = iommu_report_fault(obj, &da);
> - clk_disable(obj->clk);
> if (errs == 0)
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
I'm not terribly familiar with this IOMMU code, but this one looks
suspiciou because you're removing the clock calls but not replacing them
with runtime PM get/put calls.
I just want to make sure that's intentional. If so, you might want to
add a comment about that to the changelog.
Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists