Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1600644 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-14 17:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-03-16 16:30 +0100 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: OMAP2+ hwmod: Allow modules to disable HW_AUTO Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> - 2017-03-14 17:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: OMAP2+ hwmod: Allow modules to disable HW_AUTO Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> - 2017-03-16 09:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: OMAP2+ hwmod: Allow modules to disable HW_AUTO Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> - 2017-03-16 09:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: OMAP2+ hwmod: Allow modules to disable HW_AUTO Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> - 2017-03-16 16:30 +0100
| From | Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-14 17:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: OMAP2+ hwmod: Allow modules to disable HW_AUTO |
| Message-ID | <tkX1D-2dV-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
* Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.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? Regards, Tony
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-16 09:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tlyDU-3Np-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1600644 |
Tony, On 14/03/17 17:48, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.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. -- cheers, -roger
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-16 09:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tlyXf-3YD-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1602044 |
On 16/03/17 09:59, Roger Quadros wrote: > Tony, > > On 14/03/17 17:48, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> * Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-16 16:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tlFvH-gv-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1602064 |
* Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> [170316 01:06]: > On 16/03/17 09:59, Roger Quadros wrote: > > Tony, > > > > On 14/03/17 17:48, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >> * Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.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? OK. Maybe add a comment there about that? Regards, Tony
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web