[PATCHv12 0/9] OMAP3+: PRCM chain handler

[Bedia, Vaibhav]

Hi Kevin,

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 06:49:52, Hilman, Kevin wrote:
[...]
> >
> > 1. IO and wakeup events are not supported on AM33XX. Since cpu_is_34xx()
> > holds true for AM33XX I ended up adding a !cpu_is_am33xx() check in 
> > omap3xxx_prcm_init() to bypass the chain handler registration.
> 
> > Without such a check we were seeing a crash in USB since USB_CLKCTRL on 
> > AM33XX just happens to be at the IRQENABLE_MPU_OFFSET of OMAP3.
> > Hope such cpu_is_*() checks are acceptable.
> 
> We try to avoid them, especially when we already have existing feature
> flag for IO wakeups.
> 
> Does something like (completely untested) patch below work for you?
> 
> Of course, that implies that that feature flag is initialized correctly
> for AM33xx.
> 
> Kevin
> 
> 
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm2xxx_3xxx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm2xxx_3xxx.c
> index c1c4d86..87451d9 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm2xxx_3xxx.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm2xxx_3xxx.c
> @@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ void omap3xxx_prm_restore_irqen(u32 *saved_mask)
>  
>  static int __init omap3xxx_prcm_init(void)
>  {
> -	if (cpu_is_omap34xx())
> +	if (cpu_is_omap34xx() && omap3_has_io_wakeup())
>  		return omap_prcm_register_chain_handler(&omap3_prcm_irq_setup);
>  	return 0;
>  }
> 

I'll try this out once we have feature flag initialized on AM33xx.
Can the cpu_is_omap34xx() check be completely dropped in that case?
Or is there some other reason for retaining it?

I guess we'll still need a way to avoid the error message from mux.c

Regards,
Vaibhav