2010-04-06 21:28:04

by Andrew Victor

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] AT91 slow-clock suspend: don't wait when turning PLLs off

hi Anders,

> From: Julien Langer <[email protected]>
>
> AT91: when turning off the PLLs during suspend, don't wait for the lock flag
> to be set. Previously the code would always run into the loop limitation
> of 1000 iterations because the flag is never set when turning the PLLs off.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julien Langer <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Anders Larsen <[email protected]>
> Cc: Andrew Victor <[email protected]>
> Cc: Russell King <[email protected]>

During suspend we set the MULA and MULB bits to 0 to disable the
PLL's. When disabled, the PLLs will never "lock".

Acked-by: Andrew Victor <[email protected]>


Russell: This is patch 5975/1 in the patch-system.

2010-04-12 19:10:33

by Russell King - ARM Linux

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] AT91 slow-clock suspend: don't wait when turning PLLs off

On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 11:27:55PM +0200, Andrew Victor wrote:
> hi Anders,
>
> > From: Julien Langer <[email protected]>
> >
> > AT91: when turning off the PLLs during suspend, don't wait for the lock flag
> > to be set. Previously the code would always run into the loop limitation
> > of 1000 iterations because the flag is never set when turning the PLLs off.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Julien Langer <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Anders Larsen <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Andrew Victor <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Russell King <[email protected]>
>
> During suspend we set the MULA and MULB bits to 0 to disable the
> PLL's. When disabled, the PLLs will never "lock".
>
> Acked-by: Andrew Victor <[email protected]>
>
>
> Russell: This is patch 5975/1 in the patch-system.

Thanks; I see your ack has been added to that patch. Should I assume that
this is for -rc rather than -devel?

2010-04-13 07:28:21

by Andrew Victor

Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] AT91 slow-clock suspend: don't wait when turning PLLs off

hi Russell,

>> > AT91: when turning off the PLLs during suspend, don't wait for the lock flag
>> > to be set. Previously the code would always run into the loop limitation
>> > of 1000 iterations because the flag is never set when turning the PLLs off.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Julien Langer <[email protected]>
>> > Signed-off-by: Anders Larsen <[email protected]>
>> > Cc: Andrew Victor <[email protected]>
>> > Cc: Russell King <[email protected]>
>> ? ?Acked-by: Andrew Victor <[email protected]>
>>
>>
> Thanks; I see your ack has been added to that patch. ?Should I assume that
> this is for -rc rather than -devel?

If it can still be merged for -rc, that would be great.
Otherwise the -devel branch is ok.


Regards,
Andrew Victor