[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6549429e-bd3c-5249-2fbd-cd1c45b5b2c1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 19:07:50 +0200
From: Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
To: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>
Cc: Daniel Kurtz <djkurtz@...omium.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: mediatek: Check if power domains can be powered on
at boot time
Hi Nicolas,
Thanks for the patch.
On 30/07/2020 06:01, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> In the error case, where a power domain cannot be powered on
> successfully at boot time (in mtk_register_power_domains),
> pm_genpd_init would still be called with is_off=false, and the
> system would later try to disable the power domain again, triggering
> warnings as disabled clocks are disabled again (and other potential
> issues).
>
> Fixes: c84e358718a66f7 ("soc: Mediatek: Add SCPSYS power domain driver")
> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>
>
> ---
>
> drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c
> index f669d3754627dad..0055a52a49733d5 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-scpsys.c
> @@ -524,6 +524,7 @@ static void mtk_register_power_domains(struct platform_device *pdev,
> for (i = 0; i < num; i++) {
> struct scp_domain *scpd = &scp->domains[i];
> struct generic_pm_domain *genpd = &scpd->genpd;
> + bool on;
>
> /*
> * Initially turn on all domains to make the domains usable
> @@ -531,9 +532,9 @@ static void mtk_register_power_domains(struct platform_device *pdev,
> * software. The unused domains will be switched off during
> * late_init time.
> */
> - genpd->power_on(genpd);
> + on = genpd->power_on(genpd) >= 0;
Is this something we expect? On probing we realize that some domains can't be
turned on?
I understand that this would be a bug in the driver. Therefore we should at most
provide a warning instead of working around the bug, hiding it. Or do I got this
wrong?
Regards,
Matthias
>
> - pm_genpd_init(genpd, NULL, false);
> + pm_genpd_init(genpd, NULL, !on);
> }
>
> /*
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists