Skip to contentSkip to conversation

ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place

PATCH New Abhijit Pagare 3 participants 4 messages Jan 8, 2010 – Jan 11, 2010

Subsystems (3)
Arm (32-bit) Arm sub-architectures OMAP2+ support
lore
Share & tools
lore

Abhijit Pagare

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 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 <[email protected]>
Cc Paul Walmsley <[email protected]>

---

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(-)
arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c +0 -1
index a779240..6d1e97b 100644
@@ -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");
 	}
Signature · 1 line
1.5.4.7
#1 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place

Abhijit,

Quoted 28 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:linux-omap- [email protected]] On Behalf Of Pagare, Abhijit
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 5:59 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
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 <[email protected]>
Cc Paul Walmsley <[email protected]>

---

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(-)
arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c +0 -0
index a779240..6d1e97b 100644

arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c void __init omap2_check_revision(void) · line 367

Quoted 7 lines
arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c +0 -1
@@ -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

Quoted 7 lines

--
1.5.4.7

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

author
#2 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 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-omap&m=126088474831309&w=2

Do let me know if you have any further questions.

Best Regards,
Abhijit Pagare

Quoted 97 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: Aguirre, Sergio
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 PM
To: Pagare, Abhijit; linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm- kernel at lists.infradead.org
Cc: Paul Walmsley
Subject: RE: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place

Abhijit,

Quoted 28 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-omap-owner at vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap- owner at vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pagare, Abhijit
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 5:59 AM
To: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel at 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 <[email protected]>
Cc Paul Walmsley <[email protected]>

---

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(-)
arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c +0 -0
index a779240..6d1e97b 100644

arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c void __init omap2_check_revision(void) · line 367

Quoted 7 lines
arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c +0 -1
@@ -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

Quoted 7 lines

--
1.5.4.7

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

maintainer
#3 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place

Quoted 6 lines · Pagare, Abhijit

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.

Please update your other patch to include this change.

Regards,

Tony

Quoted 105 lines

Best Regards,
Abhijit Pagare

Quoted 86 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: Aguirre, Sergio
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 7:31 PM
To: Pagare, Abhijit; [email protected]; linux-arm- [email protected]
Cc: Paul Walmsley
Subject: RE: [PATCH] ARM: OMAP4: Power Domains: Remove the return as power domain framework is in place

Abhijit,

Quoted 28 lines

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:linux-omap- [email protected]] On Behalf Of Pagare, Abhijit
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 5:59 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
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 <[email protected]>
Cc Paul Walmsley <[email protected]>

---

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(-)
arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c +0 -0
index a779240..6d1e97b 100644

arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c void __init omap2_check_revision(void) · line 367

Quoted 7 lines
arch/arm/mach-omap2/id.c +0 -1
@@ -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?

Quoted 11 lines

Is OMAP4 chip giving positive on cpu_is_omap343x() test then??

Regards,
Sergio

Quoted 7 lines

--
1.5.4.7

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to [email protected]
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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html