From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751825AbdCPI0h (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 04:26:37 -0400 Received: from lelnx193.ext.ti.com ([198.47.27.77]:26786 "EHLO lelnx193.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751121AbdCPIZr (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Mar 2017 04:25:47 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: OMAP2+ hwmod: Allow modules to disable HW_AUTO To: Tony Lindgren References: <1489405996-10718-1-git-send-email-rogerq@ti.com> <1489405996-10718-3-git-send-email-rogerq@ti.com> <20170314154843.GD20572@atomide.com> <1ffd0881-9076-04b0-62bf-85b02dd7bbf3@ti.com> CC: , , , , , From: Roger Quadros Message-ID: <328f9510-49bb-294c-40fd-ad0167101a50@ti.com> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:04:33 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1ffd0881-9076-04b0-62bf-85b02dd7bbf3@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 16/03/17 09:59, Roger Quadros wrote: > Tony, > > On 14/03/17 17:48, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> * Roger Quadros [170313 04:55]: >> >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap_hwmod.c >>> @@ -2149,7 +2149,7 @@ static int _idle(struct omap_hwmod *oh) >>> _idle_sysc(oh); >>> _del_initiator_dep(oh, mpu_oh); >>> >>> - if (oh->clkdm) >>> + if (oh->clkdm && !(oh->flags & HWMOD_CLKDM_NOAUTO)) >>> clkdm_deny_idle(oh->clkdm); >>> >>> if (oh->flags & HWMOD_BLOCK_WFI) >> >> Is this change to _idle() really needed? It seems that the >> clkdm_deny_idle() there is paired with the clkdm_allow_idle() >> later on in the same function? >> > > You are right. This change to _idle() is unnecessary. I'll send an update. > Now I remember why I put it there. When HWMOD_CLKDM_NOAUTO flag is set, _enable() does not call clkdm_allow_idle() so the call to clkdm_deny_idle() in _idle() would be redundant. I think we should keep the patch as it is. What do you say? -- cheers, -roger