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

[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.

Best Regards,
Abhijit Pagare

> -----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,
> 
> > -----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