From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Figa Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: EXYNOS: Add default latency values for Device and Power Domain Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:15:43 +0100 Message-ID: <1462328.Ohojb4XpRs@flatron> References: <1383892025-14759-1-git-send-email-sachin.kamat@linaro.org> <9546263.JaCWNRjo5C@flatron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Yadwinder Singh Brar , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Sachin Kamat , linux-samsung-soc , Kukjin Kim , prathyush.k@samsung.com, Prasanna Kumar , Linux PM list , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Monday 11 of November 2013 23:11:41 Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote: > >> +}; > >> + > >> static int exynos_pd_power(struct generic_pm_domain *domain, bool power_on) > >> { > >> struct exynos_pm_domain *pd; > >> @@ -83,7 +94,7 @@ static void exynos_add_device_to_domain(struct exynos_pm_domain *pd, > >> dev_dbg(dev, "adding to power domain %s\n", pd->pd.name); > >> > >> while (1) { > >> - ret = pm_genpd_add_device(&pd->pd, dev); > >> + ret = __pm_genpd_add_device(&pd->pd, dev, &dev_latencies); > > > > The double underscore prefix scares me a bit. Is this function really > > supposed to be used like this? > > > > Moreover, it also seems little bit odd in the first place, to pass > dev_latencies(QoS timing parameters) when we are not using/providing > any governor for the genpd. QoS timing parameters have to be provided > to be used by governor. In our case since we are not using/providing > any governor yet, so it seems odd to provide QoS timing parameters. It > seems, here core pd code is giving unnecessary warning in our case, > since we are not providing governor(not interested in QoS). So IMO > warning should be fixed instead of just suppressing it by giving some > big values of timing parameters. > Yes, that would be probably much better option than providing some random values that do not have any rationale behind them. Rafael, could you comment on this? Best regards, Tomasz From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tomasz.figa@gmail.com (Tomasz Figa) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:15:43 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: EXYNOS: Add default latency values for Device and Power Domain In-Reply-To: References: <1383892025-14759-1-git-send-email-sachin.kamat@linaro.org> <9546263.JaCWNRjo5C@flatron> Message-ID: <1462328.Ohojb4XpRs@flatron> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Monday 11 of November 2013 23:11:41 Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote: > >> +}; > >> + > >> static int exynos_pd_power(struct generic_pm_domain *domain, bool power_on) > >> { > >> struct exynos_pm_domain *pd; > >> @@ -83,7 +94,7 @@ static void exynos_add_device_to_domain(struct exynos_pm_domain *pd, > >> dev_dbg(dev, "adding to power domain %s\n", pd->pd.name); > >> > >> while (1) { > >> - ret = pm_genpd_add_device(&pd->pd, dev); > >> + ret = __pm_genpd_add_device(&pd->pd, dev, &dev_latencies); > > > > The double underscore prefix scares me a bit. Is this function really > > supposed to be used like this? > > > > Moreover, it also seems little bit odd in the first place, to pass > dev_latencies(QoS timing parameters) when we are not using/providing > any governor for the genpd. QoS timing parameters have to be provided > to be used by governor. In our case since we are not using/providing > any governor yet, so it seems odd to provide QoS timing parameters. It > seems, here core pd code is giving unnecessary warning in our case, > since we are not providing governor(not interested in QoS). So IMO > warning should be fixed instead of just suppressing it by giving some > big values of timing parameters. > Yes, that would be probably much better option than providing some random values that do not have any rationale behind them. Rafael, could you comment on this? Best regards, Tomasz