On Tuesday 16 August 2011 08:08 PM, Jean Pihet wrote:
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Santosh<santosh.shilim...@ti.com> wrote:
On Tuesday 16 August 2011 07:13 PM, jean.pi...@newoldbits.com wrote:
From: Vishwanath BS<vishwanath...@ti.com>
This patch adds wake up latency numbers for OMAP4. Note that these are
preliminary numbers and need to be relooked.
Signed-off-by: Vishwanath BS<vishwanath...@ti.com>
The INACTIVE state is added as unsupported.
In that case, don't add that support in first place. When INA support is
getting added, you can update these as well.
No. A value is needed for all states, even if unsupported at the
moment. Omitting a value causes it to be set to '0', which means 'no
latency'.
What I am saying is don't add "PWRDM_FUNC_PWRST_INACTIVE" which is
not supported. Then you won't even have that state and no need
of latency number for that in the current series.
Regards
Santosh
--
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
