[PATCHv5 2/6] ARM: OMAP3 PM: Move IO Daisychain function to omap3 prm file

[Tero Kristo]

On Tue, 2012-03-06 at 09:57 -0600, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 17:11-20120306, Tero Kristo wrote:
> > From: Vishwanath BS <vishwanath.bs at ti.com>
> > 
> > Since IO Daisychain modifies only PRM registers, it makes sense to move
> > it to PRM File. Also changed the timeout value for IO chain enable to
> > 100us and added a wait for status disable at the end.
> [...]
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm2xxx_3xxx.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm2xxx_3xxx.c
> > index 9ce7654..2f45b96 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm2xxx_3xxx.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm2xxx_3xxx.c
> > @@ -301,6 +301,43 @@ void omap3xxx_prm_restore_irqen(u32 *saved_mask)
> >  				OMAP3_PRM_IRQENABLE_MPU_OFFSET);
> >  }
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * Maximum time(us) it takes to output the signal WUCLKOUT of the last pad of
> > + * the I/O ring after asserting WUCLKIN high
> > + */
> > +#define MAX_IOPAD_LATCH_TIME 100
> > +
> > +/* OMAP3 Daisychain enable sequence */
> > +void omap3_trigger_io_chain(void)
> > +{
> > +	int i = 0;
> > +
> > +	omap2_prm_set_mod_reg_bits(OMAP3430_EN_IO_CHAIN_MASK, WKUP_MOD,
> > +				   PM_WKEN);
> > +	/* Do a readback to assure write has been done */
> > +	omap2_prm_read_mod_reg(WKUP_MOD, PM_WKEN);
> > +
> > +	omap_test_timeout(omap2_prm_read_mod_reg(WKUP_MOD, PM_WKST) &
> > +			  OMAP3430_ST_IO_CHAIN_MASK,
> > +			  MAX_IOPAD_LATCH_TIME, i);
> probably a nitpick, but would'nt you like to keep the OMAP3 and OMAP4
> style consistent?
> > +
> > +	omap2_prm_clear_mod_reg_bits(OMAP3430_EN_IO_CHAIN_MASK, WKUP_MOD,
> > +				     PM_WKEN);
> > +
> > +	omap2_prm_set_mod_reg_bits(OMAP3430_ST_IO_CHAIN_MASK, WKUP_MOD,
> > +				     PM_WKST);
> > +
> > +	omap2_prm_read_mod_reg(WKUP_MOD, PM_WKST);
> in the previous iteration it had:
> omap_test_timeout(((omap2_prm_read_mod_reg(WKUP_MOD, PM_WKST) &
> OMAP3430_ST_IO_CHAIN_MASK) == 0),
> MAX_IOPAD_LATCH_TIME,
> i);
> gone now?

Yea, according to TRM this is not what should be done on omap3,
apparently one of the comments I received was in error for one of the
previous versions. Also, the implementation in patch 1 is closer to what
is here now.

-Tero