[PATCHv3 1/4] ARM: OMAP4: suspend: Program all domains to retention

[Tero Kristo]

On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 14:29 +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> On Tuesday 06 March 2012 02:24 PM, Tero Kristo wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 14:13 +0530, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 06 March 2012 02:01 PM, Tero Kristo wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 16:33 -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >>>> Tero Kristo<t-kristo at ti.com>   writes:
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: Rajendra Nayak<rnayak at ti.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Remove the FIXME's in the suspend sequence since
> >>>>> we now intend to support system level RET support.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak<rnayak at ti.com>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo<t-kristo at ti.com>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar<santosh.shilimkar at ti.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> So this is the only patch in this series that is still needed.  However...
> >>>>
> >>>> It doesn't seem like this all by itself is ready for mainline as we'll
> >>>> suddenly start putting all powerdomains in retention without any
> >>>> additional support.
> >>>>
> >>>> I guess at a minimum it needs working IO wakeup support from the IO
> >>>> daisy chain series.  Are there other dependencies here?
> >>>
> >>> Only IO chain is needed for wakeup capability. Actually even with the
> >>> current mainline kernel, I am unable to wake-up the device from MPU
> >>> retention, as there are no wakeup sources. So this patch doesn't really
> >>
> >> Why?, doesn't debug console wakeup work?
> >
> > At least I couldn't get it to work. I tried with no_console_suspend
> > kernel param to no avail. Don't know if I was missing something else.
> 
> Did you try enabling wakeup for the debug console?
> echo enabled > /sys/devices/platform/omap/omap_uart.2/tty/ttyO2/power/wakeup

I think not, however I wonder why the wakeups are not enabled by default
if this helps?

> 
> >
> > -Tero
> >
> >>
> >>> change the behavior to worse even without any additional patches. :) But
> >>> yea, good to wait until IO chain is in.
> >>
> >> IO chain, according to documentation :) should be needed only if you
> >> hit OSWR or OFF, async wakeups should be functional as long as you
> >> only hit CSWR.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> The other dependencies are that the stuff handled by patches 2,3 and 4
> >>> have to be handled somehow:
> >>>
> >>> -patch2: must be in (this patch is queued by Paul)
> >>> -patch3: will be taken care of by Paul's pwrdm fixes (I guess this is
> >>> queued by Paul himself already)
> >>> -patch4: OMAP interrupt count must be increased (this is handled by
> >>> Benoit's patch, which is queued by Tony)
> >>>
> >>> -Tero
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If not, I can queue this when Paul is ready to merge the IO wakeup
> >>>> stuff.
> >>>>
> >>>> Kevin
> >>>>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>    arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c |    6 ------
> >>>>>    1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c
> >>>>> index c264ef7..1ab30a3 100644
> >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c
> >>>>> @@ -151,12 +151,6 @@ static int __init pwrdms_setup(struct powerdomain *pwrdm, void *unused)
> >>>>>    	if (!strncmp(pwrdm->name, "cpu", 3))
> >>>>>    		return 0;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -	/*
> >>>>> -	 * FIXME: Remove this check when core retention is supported
> >>>>> -	 * Only MPUSS power domain is added in the list.
> >>>>> -	 */
> >>>>> -	if (strcmp(pwrdm->name, "mpu_pwrdm"))
> >>>>> -		return 0;
> >>>>>
> >>>>>    	pwrst = kmalloc(sizeof(struct power_state), GFP_ATOMIC);
> >>>>>    	if (!pwrst)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>