[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <328f9510-49bb-294c-40fd-ad0167101a50@ti.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:04:33 +0200
From: Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
CC: <paul@...an.com>, <bcousson@...libre.com>, <t-kristo@...com>,
<nsekhar@...com>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: OMAP2+ hwmod: Allow modules to disable HW_AUTO
On 16/03/17 09:59, Roger Quadros wrote:
> Tony,
>
> On 14/03/17 17:48, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> * Roger Quadros <rogerq@...com> [170313 04:55]:
>>
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c
>>> @@ -2149,7 +2149,7 @@ static int _idle(struct omap_hwmod *oh)
>>> _idle_sysc(oh);
>>> _del_initiator_dep(oh, mpu_oh);
>>>
>>> - if (oh->clkdm)
>>> + if (oh->clkdm && !(oh->flags & HWMOD_CLKDM_NOAUTO))
>>> clkdm_deny_idle(oh->clkdm);
>>>
>>> if (oh->flags & HWMOD_BLOCK_WFI)
>>
>> Is this change to _idle() really needed? It seems that the
>> clkdm_deny_idle() there is paired with the clkdm_allow_idle()
>> later on in the same function?
>>
>
> You are right. This change to _idle() is unnecessary. I'll send an update.
>
Now I remember why I put it there.
When HWMOD_CLKDM_NOAUTO flag is set, _enable() does not
call clkdm_allow_idle() so the call to clkdm_deny_idle() in _idle() would
be redundant.
I think we should keep the patch as it is. What do you say?
--
cheers,
-roger
Powered by blists - more mailing lists