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

[Aguirre, Sergio]

Abhijit,

> -----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 <abhijitpagare at ti.com>
> Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul at 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 majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html