Re: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place
* Pagare, Abhijit abhijitpag...@ti.com [100110 21:57]:
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-omapm=126088474831309w=2
Do let me know if you have any further questions.
Please update your other patch to include this change.
Regards,
Tony
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
--
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
RE: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place
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-omapm=126088474831309w=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
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
