Sergio,
I have taken care of that in my other patches, which I had posted
earlier. They are not in mainline yet but are lined up for the next release.
You can find the same here.
http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=126088474831309&w=2
Do let me know if you have any further questions.
Best Regards,
Abhijit Pagare
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aguirre, Sergio
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 PM
> To: Pagare, Abhijit; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-
> ker...@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: Paul Walmsley
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power
> domain framework is in place
>
> Abhijit,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
> > ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pagare, Abhijit
> > Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 5:59 AM
> > To: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> > Cc: Pagare, Abhijit; Paul Walmsley
> > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power
> > domain framework is in place
> >
> > The return prevents the power domains from getting registered.
> > Hence removing it to allow the frameworks model to work.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Abhijit Pagare <abhijitpag...@ti.com>
> > Cc: Paul Walmsley <p...@pwsan.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP4430 simulator and ES1 Chip
> > Compiled and Boot Tested on OMAP3430 SDP
> > Compiled for OMAP2430 and OMAP2420
> >
> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c | 1 -
> > 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> > index a779240..6d1e97b 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c
> > @@ -362,7 +362,6 @@ void __init omap2_check_revision(void)
> > omap3_cpuinfo();
> > } else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) {
> > omap4_check_revision();
> > - return;
> > } else {
> > pr_err("OMAP revision unknown, please fix!\n");
> > }
>
> I don't have an OMAP4 with me, but I found something weird in your
> reported behaviour...
>
> The code that was being skipped is:
>
> /*
> * OK, now we know the exact revision. Initialize omap_chip bits
> * for powerdowmain and clockdomain code.
> */
> if (cpu_is_omap243x()) {
> /* Currently only supports 2430ES2.1 and 2430-all */
> omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2430;
> } else if (cpu_is_omap242x()) {
> /* Currently only supports 2420ES2.1.1 and 2420-all */
> omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP2420;
> } else if (cpu_is_omap3505() || cpu_is_omap3517()) {
> omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430 | CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1;
> } else if (cpu_is_omap343x()) {
> omap_chip.oc = CHIP_IS_OMAP3430;
> if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0)
> omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES1;
> else if (omap_rev() >= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0 &&
> omap_rev() <= OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1)
> omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES2;
> else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0)
> omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_0;
> else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1)
> omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3430ES3_1;
> else if (omap_rev() == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0)
> omap_chip.oc |= CHIP_IS_OMAP3630ES1;
> } else {
> pr_err("Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!\n");
> }
>
> And, in theory, in OMAP4 case, you SHOULDN'T be doing anything here, as
> there's no case for cpu_is_omap443x or similar. So you should be _only_
> seeing a print in console saying: "Uninitialized omap_chip, please fix!",
> right?
>
> Is OMAP4 chip giving positive on cpu_is_omap343x() test then??
>
> Regards,
> Sergio
> > --
> > 1.5.4.7
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
> > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
