* Roger Quadros <rog...@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 <rog...@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
