| Message ID | 1527096724-22271-1-git-send-email-j-keerthy@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 5/23/2018 10:32 AM, Keerthy wrote: > From: Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@ti.com> > > After an RTC+DDR cycle we lose sram context so emif pm functions present > in sram are lost. We can check if the first byte of the original > code in DDR contains the same first byte as the code in sram, and if > they do not match we know we have lost context and must recopy the > functions to the previous address to maintain PM functionality. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@ti.com> > Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> > --- > > Changes in v2: > > * Added an empty suspend function with a comment to explain why > nothing needs to be done during suspend > Just 1 patch or you just posted only the updated one ? Your earlier series has 14 patches and hence the question. Patch itself looks fine to me. Regards, Santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 5/24/2018 12:06 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > On 5/23/2018 10:32 AM, Keerthy wrote: >> From: Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@ti.com> >> >> After an RTC+DDR cycle we lose sram context so emif pm functions present >> in sram are lost. We can check if the first byte of the original >> code in DDR contains the same first byte as the code in sram, and if >> they do not match we know we have lost context and must recopy the >> functions to the previous address to maintain PM functionality. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@ti.com> >> Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> >> --- >> >> Changes in v2: >> >> * Added an empty suspend function with a comment to explain why >> nothing needs to be done during suspend >> > Just 1 patch or you just posted only the updated one ? > Your earlier series has 14 patches and hence the question. Yes, the original one had 14 patches which i split into multiple smaller series and am posting them separately. > > Patch itself looks fine to me. > > Regards, > Santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 5/23/2018 12:26 PM, J, KEERTHY wrote: > > > On 5/24/2018 12:06 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> On 5/23/2018 10:32 AM, Keerthy wrote: >>> From: Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@ti.com> >>> >>> After an RTC+DDR cycle we lose sram context so emif pm functions present >>> in sram are lost. We can check if the first byte of the original >>> code in DDR contains the same first byte as the code in sram, and if >>> they do not match we know we have lost context and must recopy the >>> functions to the previous address to maintain PM functionality. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@ti.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com> >>> --- >>> >>> Changes in v2: >>> >>> * Added an empty suspend function with a comment to explain why >>> nothing needs to be done during suspend >>> >> Just 1 patch or you just posted only the updated one ? >> Your earlier series has 14 patches and hence the question. > > Yes, the original one had 14 patches which i split into multiple smaller > series and > am posting them separately. > OK. Will queue this up for 4.19 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c b/drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c index 632651f..2e88dc1 100644 --- a/drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c +++ b/drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c @@ -249,6 +249,34 @@ int ti_emif_get_mem_type(void) }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, ti_emif_of_match); +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP +static int ti_emif_resume(struct device *dev) +{ + unsigned long tmp = + __raw_readl((void *)emif_instance->ti_emif_sram_virt); + + /* + * Check to see if what we are copying is already present in the + * first byte at the destination, only copy if it is not which + * indicates we have lost context and sram no longer contains + * the PM code + */ + if (tmp != ti_emif_sram) + ti_emif_push_sram(dev, emif_instance); + + return 0; +} + +static int ti_emif_suspend(struct device *dev) +{ + /* + * The contents will be present in DDR hence no need to + * explicitly save + */ + return 0; +} +#endif /* CONFIG_PM_SLEEP */ + static int ti_emif_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { int ret; @@ -308,12 +336,17 @@ static int ti_emif_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) return 0; } +static const struct dev_pm_ops ti_emif_pm_ops = { + SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(ti_emif_suspend, ti_emif_resume) +}; + static struct platform_driver ti_emif_driver = { .probe = ti_emif_probe, .remove = ti_emif_remove, .driver = { .name = KBUILD_MODNAME, .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(ti_emif_of_match), + .pm = &ti_emif_pm_ops, }, }; module_platform_driver(ti_emif_driver);