linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: AM43xx: hwmod: add VPFE hwmod entries

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150128193038.GG2570@ti.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2015 13:30:38 -0600
From:	Benoit Parrot <bparrot@...com>
To:	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
CC:	"Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Darren Etheridge <detheridge@...com>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: AM43xx: hwmod: add VPFE hwmod entries

Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com> wrote on Mon [2015-Jan-26 18:47:11 +0000]:
> Hi Prabhakar,
> 
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2015, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> 
> > Hi Benoit,
> > 
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 3:50 PM, Benoit Parrot <bparrot@...com> wrote:
> > > Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com> wrote on Mon [2015-Jan-26 08:13:01 +0000]:
> > >> Hi Paul,
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for the review.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 2:15 AM, Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com> wrote:
> > >> > Hi
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sun, 25 Jan 2015, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> From: Benoit Parrot <bparrot@...com>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> this patch adds VPFE HWMOD data for AM43xx.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Benoit Parrot <bparrot@...com>
> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Darren Etheridge <detheridge@...com>
> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
> > >> >> ---
> > >> >>  Hi Paul,
> > >> >>
> > >> >>  You were right, the hardware team has confirmed that, the VPFE master port is
> > >> >>  connected to L3 and the VPFE slave port is connected to L4. The L3 port cannot
> > >> >>  serve as a register target because it is initiator only.
> > >> >
> > >> > OK makes sense to me.,
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>  I have created links referring to dss l3/l4 hwmod and tested it, lemme know
> > >> >>  if I have missed something.
> > >> >
> > >> > A few minor comments below
> > >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> [Snip]
> > >> >>  /* Interfaces */
> > >> >>  static struct omap_hwmod_ocp_if am43xx_l3_main__l4_hs = {
> > >> >>       .master         = &am33xx_l3_main_hwmod,
> > >> >> @@ -788,6 +826,36 @@ static struct omap_hwmod_ocp_if am43xx_l4_ls__dss_rfbi = {
> > >> >>       .user           = OCP_USER_MPU | OCP_USER_SDMA,
> > >> >>  };
> > >> >>
> > >> >> +static struct omap_hwmod_ocp_if am43xx_l3__vpfe0 = {
> > >> >> +     .master         = &am43xx_vpfe0_hwmod,
> > >> >> +     .slave          = &am33xx_l3_main_hwmod,
> > >> >> +     .clk            = "l3_gclk",
> > >> >> +     .flags          = OCPIF_SWSUP_IDLE,
> > >> >
> > >> > OCPIF_SWSUP_IDLE probably isn't needed here.  Could you please try without
> > >> > it?
> > >> >
> > >> >> +     .user           = OCP_USER_MPU | OCP_USER_SDMA,
> > >> >> +};
> > >> >> +
> > >> >> +static struct omap_hwmod_ocp_if am43xx_l3__vpfe1 = {
> > >> >> +     .master         = &am43xx_vpfe1_hwmod,
> > >> >> +     .slave          = &am33xx_l3_main_hwmod,
> > >> >> +     .clk            = "l3_gclk",
> > >> >> +     .flags          = OCPIF_SWSUP_IDLE,
> > >> >
> > >> > Same point as the above.
> > >> >
> > >> Dropped and tested works! posting a v3.
> > >
> > > When you tested it without the OCPIF_SWSUP_IDLE, did you go trhough a complete suspend/resume cycle?
> > > This flag was added early on because otherwise the susbsytem would not go idle without it...
> > >
> > > Can you post the console output during a suspend/resume cycle?
> > >
> > Ah I didn’t test the suspend/resume will do and post the console log.
> 
> Could you also do a suspend/resume test on v2?

Prabbhakar,

I tested both v2 and v3 and both successfully went through a suspend/resume cycle.
So I guess v3 is fine, sorry for the noise.

I'll add a tested-by on V3.

Benoit

>  
> thanks
> 
> - Paul

--
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/