Subject: [PATCH 07/10] ARM: OMAP5 / DRA7: Enable CPU RET on suspend

From: [email-masked] (Tony Lindgren)
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 12:41:56 -0700

* Nishanth Menon <[email-masked]> [140827 12:05]:
> On 08/27/2014 01:58 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > Nishanth Menon <[email-masked]> writes:
> > 
> >> From: Rajendra Nayak <[email-masked]>
> >>
> >> On OMAP5 / DRA7, prevent a CPU powerdomain OFF and resulting MPU OSWR
> >> and instead attempt a CPU RET and side effect, MPU RET in suspend.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <[email-masked]>
> >> [nm at ti.com: update to do save_state only on DRA7]
> >> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <[email-masked]>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c |    4 ++++
> >>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-wakeupgen.c      |    2 +-
> >>  arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c              |    9 +++++++--
> >>  3 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c
> >> index 207fce2..0d640eb 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-mpuss-lowpower.c
> >> @@ -242,6 +242,10 @@ int omap4_enter_lowpower(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int power_state)
> >>  		save_state = 1;
> >>  		break;
> >>  	case PWRDM_POWER_RET:
> >> +		if (soc_is_omap54xx() || soc_is_dra7xx()) {
> > 
> > Aren't we trying to get away from these soc_* checks for anything other
> > than init code?
> 
> I would expect that to take place in stages as part of which the next
> level of cleanup is to move PRM into drivers. Currently our wakeupgen,
> prm code does have quiet a few needs of dealing with soc_is checks
> primarily from having to re-architect code in two different directions
> - we want to move into just one direction eventually - to prm drivers
> and as less code in mach-omap2 which is already in the works.

Why don't you just set some flag at init time based on the
soc_is check and then test that here? That limits the use of
soc_is to init code only which makes it easier to phase it
out completely eventually.

Regards,

Tony