Re: [PATCH] soc: ti: pm33xx: Enable DS0 for the platforms on which it is functional

[Johan Hovold]

On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 09:34:09AM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 11:02:31AM +0530, Keerthy wrote:
> > Enable DS0 for only those platforms on which it is functional
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Keerthy <j-keerthy@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm33xx-core.c    | 5 +++++
> >  drivers/soc/ti/pm33xx.c              | 9 +++++++++
> >  include/linux/platform_data/pm33xx.h | 2 ++
> >  3 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm33xx-core.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm33xx-core.c
> > index f4971e4..f0f6e8e 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm33xx-core.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm33xx-core.c
> > @@ -135,6 +135,11 @@ static int am43xx_suspend(unsigned int state, int (*fn)(unsigned long),
> >  {
> >  	int ret = 0;
> >  
> > +	if (!(args & WFI_FLAG_DEEP_SLEEP0)) {
> > +		pr_err("DS0 mode not supported\n");
> > +		return -ENOTSUPP;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	amx3_pre_suspend_common();
> >  	scu_power_mode(scu_base, SCU_PM_POWEROFF);
> >  	ret = cpu_suspend(args, fn);
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/ti/pm33xx.c b/drivers/soc/ti/pm33xx.c
> > index d0dab32..53238d7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/ti/pm33xx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/ti/pm33xx.c
> > @@ -324,6 +324,15 @@ static int am33xx_pm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  	suspend_wfi_flags |= WFI_FLAG_SAVE_EMIF;
> >  	suspend_wfi_flags |= WFI_FLAG_WAKE_M3;
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Deep Sleep0 mode is currently functional only on am437x-gp-evm,
> > +	 * am33xx-evm and boneblack family. Hence set the DS0 flag
> > +	 */
> > +	if (of_machine_is_compatible("ti,am437x-gp-evm") ||
> > +	    of_machine_is_compatible("ti,am335x-bone-black") ||
> > +	    of_machine_is_compatible("ti,am335x-evm"))
> > +		suspend_wfi_flags |= WFI_FLAG_DEEP_SLEEP0;
> 
> What about other (out-of-tree) machines which supports DS0 and which
> this change would break?
> 
> I think this needs to be a blacklist if anything.
> 
> Please also expand in the commit message why you think this is needed.
> 
> Last, what tree is this against? There's no am43xx_suspend() in
> linux-next (and you add compatibles above for am33xx too).

Sorry, there is indeed an am43xx_suspend(), but you are adding
compatibles for am33xx which use am33xx_suspend().

Johan