Re: [PATCH v11 7/8] OMAP: dmtimer: pm_runtime support

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* DebBarma, Tarun Kanti <tarun.kanti@ti.com> [110304 10:55]:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tony Lindgren [mailto:tony@atomide.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 10:59 PM
> > To: Hilman, Kevin
> > Cc: DebBarma, Tarun Kanti; linux-omap@vger.kernel.org; Basak, Partha
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 7/8] OMAP: dmtimer: pm_runtime support
> > 
> > * Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> [110303 17:22]:
> > > Tarun Kanti DebBarma <tarun.kanti@ti.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Add pm_runtime support to dmtimer. Since dmtimer is used during
> > > > early boot before pm_runtime is initialized completely there are
> > > > provisions to enable/disable clocks directly in the code during
> > > > early boot.
> > >
> > > I'm still not crazy about the duplicate logic (both early & normal) in
> > > all the enable/disable functions.
> > >
> > > As I've suggested in the past, why not just do a clk_get, clk_enable in
> > > when the early timers are initialized, then do a clk_disable, clk_put()
> > > as soon as the "normal" device is ready and PM runtime is enabled.
> > 
> > Even better would be to have separate handling for the system timer
> > with minimal dependencies to anything.
> > 
> > > That will greatly simplify the code and eliminate the unnecessary checks
> > > for ->is_early_device which will always be false except for in early
> > > boot (when these functions are not likely to be called anyways.)
> > 
> > And please note that only the system timer needs to be initialized early.
> > We might as well treat the system timer separately to avoid these issues.
> > 
> Yes, this is applicable normally for the system timer only.
> But as I said earlier, we are giving flexibility whereby any one of the GPTs
> Can be system timer.

Any one of them can be used, but no need to register the others this early.

Tony