Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/14] memory: ti-emif-sram: Add resume function to recopy
 sram code
To:     "santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com" <santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com>,
        <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
        <tony@atomide.com>
CC:     <t-kristo@ti.com>, <Russ.Dill@ti.com>,
        <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <ssantosh@kernel.org>, <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <d-gerlach@ti.com>
References: <1523505239-16229-1-git-send-email-j-keerthy@ti.com>
 <1523505239-16229-2-git-send-email-j-keerthy@ti.com>
 <31688cf4-b6ca-e7ce-3407-46262006b38f@oracle.com>
From:   Keerthy <j-keerthy@ti.com>
Message-ID: <d52373eb-1707-17ff-fabb-9f7200cf54c0@ti.com>
Date:   Mon, 16 Apr 2018 15:59:14 +0530
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <31688cf4-b6ca-e7ce-3407-46262006b38f@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On Thursday 12 April 2018 10:14 PM, santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com wrote:
> On 4/11/18 9:53 PM, 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>
>> ---
>>   drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c b/drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c
>> index 632651f..ec4a62c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/memory/ti-emif-pm.c
>> @@ -249,6 +249,25 @@ 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;
>> +}
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PM_SLEEP */
> Instead of this indirect method , why can't just check the previous
> deep sleep mode and based on that do copy or not. EMIF power status
> register should have something like that ?

I will check if we have a register that tells the previous state of sram.

> 
> Another minor point is even though there is nothing to do in suspend,
> might be good to have a callback with comment that nothing to do with
> some explanation why not. Don't have strong preference but may for
> better readability.

Okay. Thanks a lot for the quick feedback!

> 
> Regards,
> Santosh
> 
>