[PATCH 4/7] ARM: OMAP2+: powerdomain: introduce logic for finding valid power domain
From: Kevin Hilman <hidden>
Date: 2014-08-27 18:39:18
Also in:
linux-omap, lkml
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Nishanth Menon [off-list ref] wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Kevin Hilman [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Nishanth Menon [off-list ref] writes:quoted
powerdomain configuration in OMAP is done using PWRSTCTRL register for each power domain. However, PRCM lets us write any value we'd like to the logic and power domain target states, however the SoC integration tends to actually function only at a few discrete states. These valid states are already in our powerdomains_xxx_data.c file. So, provide a function to easily query valid low power state that the power domain is allowed to go to. Based on work originally done by Jean Pihet [off-list ref] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/1325091/ . There is no attempt to create a new powerdomain solution here, except fixing issues seen attempting invalid programming attempts. Future consolidation to the generic powerdomain framework should consider this requirement as well. Similar solutions have been done in product kernels in the past such as: https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/omap.git/+blame/android-omap-panda-3.0/arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm44xx.c Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> ---nit: this is part of a fixes series, but it's more of a new feature. That being said, the feature is needed and looks OK, except for...quoted
+up_search: + /* OK, no deeper ones, can we get a higher match? */ + new_pwrst = req_state + 1; + while (!(pwrdm_states & BIT(new_pwrst))) { + /* BUG if we have messed up database */ + BUG_ON(new_pwrst > PWRDM_POWER_ON);I don't think this is BUG() worthy, and should have a saner way to recover.it is not even a legal value to have a power state higher than ON. I mean, yeah, we can do if (new_pwrst > PWRDM_POWER_ON) { pr_debug("powerdomain: %s: fix my powerdomain max to ON\n", pwrdm->name); return PWRDM_POWER_ON; } if that is your suggestion here, personally, I would use a WARN at least here..
WARN, pr_warn() as you like. The point is that BUG* calls panic() and locks up the system tight. As what your'e adding is not fatal to the entire system, you should not be using bug. From asm-generic/bug.h: * * Don't use BUG() or BUG_ON() unless there's really no way out; one * example might be detecting data structure corruption in the middle * of an operation that can't be backed out of. If the (sub)system * can somehow continue operating, perhaps with reduced functionality, * it's probably not BUG-worthy. * * If you're tempted to BUG(), think again: is completely giving up * really the *only* solution? There are usually better options, where * users don't need to reboot ASAP and can mostly shut down cleanly. */