[PATCH] arm: omap3: am35x: Set proper powerdomain states

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 09:43:52AM +0200, Jean Pihet wrote:

Hi Mark,

Hi Jean.

On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Mark A. Greer [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

From: "Mark A. Greer" <mgreer@animalcreek.com>

The am35x family of SoCs only support the PWRSTS_ON
state so create a new set of powerdomain structures
that ensure that only the ON state is entered.

Signed-off-by: Mark A. Greer <mgreer@animalcreek.com>
---

quoted

?void __init omap3xxx_powerdomains_init(void)
?{
? ? ? ?unsigned int rev;

@@ -301,21 +403,31 @@ void __init omap3xxx_powerdomains_init(void)

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?return;

? ? ? ?pwrdm_register_platform_funcs(&omap3_pwrdm_operations);
- ? ? ? pwrdm_register_pwrdms(powerdomains_omap3430_common);

? ? ? ?rev = omap_rev();

- ? ? ? if (rev == OMAP3430_REV_ES1_0)
- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? pwrdm_register_pwrdms(powerdomains_omap3430es1);
- ? ? ? else if (rev == OMAP3430_REV_ES2_0 || rev == OMAP3430_REV_ES2_1 ||
- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?rev == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_0 || rev == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_0)
- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? pwrdm_register_pwrdms(powerdomains_omap3430es2_es3_0);
- ? ? ? else if (rev == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1 || rev == OMAP3430_REV_ES3_1_2 ||
- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?rev == AM35XX_REV_ES1_0 || rev == AM35XX_REV_ES1_1 ||
- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?rev == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_1 || rev == OMAP3630_REV_ES1_2)
- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? pwrdm_register_pwrdms(powerdomains_omap3430es3_1plus);
- ? ? ? else
- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? WARN(1, "OMAP3 powerdomain init: unknown chip type\n");
+ ? ? ? if (rev == AM35XX_REV_ES1_0 || rev == AM35XX_REV_ES1_1) {
+ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? pwrdm_register_pwrdms(powerdomains_am35x);
+ ? ? ? } else {
+ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? pwrdm_register_pwrdms(powerdomains_omap3430_common);

Is there a way to avoid the big 'if else' here and have the code
organized per chipset revision? A mutliple if-else or -even better
IMO- a switch-case would make the code more readable.

We can't avoid it completely because we have to register
powerdomains_am35x[] [exclusive] OR (powerdomains_omap3430_common[] +
extras).  What I can do is leave the outside 'if' and turn the code
inside the 'else' into a switch stmt which should look nicer.

Good idea, thanks. :)

I will submit v2 in a bit.

Mark