From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, grant.likely@secretlab.ca
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM / Platform: Remove __weak definitions of runtime PM callbacks
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 05:29:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201104070729.45484.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zko3dn4b.fsf@ti.com>
On Thursday, April 07, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Hi Rafael, Magnus,
>
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:
>
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> >
> > Remove the __weak definitions of platform bus type runtime PM
> > callbacks, make platform_dev_pm_ops point to the generic routines
> > as appropriate and allow architectures using platform_dev_pm_ops to
> > replace the runtime PM callbacks in that structure with their own
> > set.
> >
> > Convert architectures providing its own definitions of the platform
> > runtime PM callbacks to use the new mechanism.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
>
> I dont't think we should be adding yet another new interface for setting
> platform-specific runtime PM ops.
>
> We now have 3. Two existing ones:
>
> 1) new device power domains (presumably preferred)
> 2) platform_bus_set_pm_ops() (disliked by many)
Hmm, I wasn't aware of that one, will have a look.
> and now the new one you create here
>
> 3) platform_set_runtime_pm_ops()
>
> This new one is basically the same as platform_bus_set_pm_ops(), but
> targetted only at runtime PM ops, and also has all the same problems
> that have been discussed before. Namely, it overrides the pm ops for
> *every* device on the platform_bus, instead of targetting only specific
> devices.
This is not a problem for this particular use case. We really want to
replace the PM ops for all of the platform devices on that platform.
Though I agree it probably makes more sense to use the existing
platform_bus_set_pm_ops() for this purpose.
> With the new device power domains, we can target specific devices.
>
> Wouldn't the right way to go here be to convert mach-shmobile over to
> using device power domains?
Not for this particular purpose.
> The patch below against v2.6.39-rc2 combined with your patch (minus the
> mach-shmobile/* changes) should do it.
Unfortunately it would conflict with work in progress introducing _real_
power domains on shmobile.
Thanks,
Rafael
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, grant.likely@secretlab.ca
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM / Platform: Remove __weak definitions of runtime PM callbacks
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 07:29:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201104070729.45484.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zko3dn4b.fsf@ti.com>
On Thursday, April 07, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Hi Rafael, Magnus,
>
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl> writes:
>
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> >
> > Remove the __weak definitions of platform bus type runtime PM
> > callbacks, make platform_dev_pm_ops point to the generic routines
> > as appropriate and allow architectures using platform_dev_pm_ops to
> > replace the runtime PM callbacks in that structure with their own
> > set.
> >
> > Convert architectures providing its own definitions of the platform
> > runtime PM callbacks to use the new mechanism.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
>
> I dont't think we should be adding yet another new interface for setting
> platform-specific runtime PM ops.
>
> We now have 3. Two existing ones:
>
> 1) new device power domains (presumably preferred)
> 2) platform_bus_set_pm_ops() (disliked by many)
Hmm, I wasn't aware of that one, will have a look.
> and now the new one you create here
>
> 3) platform_set_runtime_pm_ops()
>
> This new one is basically the same as platform_bus_set_pm_ops(), but
> targetted only at runtime PM ops, and also has all the same problems
> that have been discussed before. Namely, it overrides the pm ops for
> *every* device on the platform_bus, instead of targetting only specific
> devices.
This is not a problem for this particular use case. We really want to
replace the PM ops for all of the platform devices on that platform.
Though I agree it probably makes more sense to use the existing
platform_bus_set_pm_ops() for this purpose.
> With the new device power domains, we can target specific devices.
>
> Wouldn't the right way to go here be to convert mach-shmobile over to
> using device power domains?
Not for this particular purpose.
> The patch below against v2.6.39-rc2 combined with your patch (minus the
> mach-shmobile/* changes) should do it.
Unfortunately it would conflict with work in progress introducing _real_
power domains on shmobile.
Thanks,
Rafael
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-07 5:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-26 23:58 [RFC][PATCH] PM / Platform: Remove __weak definitions of runtime PM callbacks Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-03-26 23:58 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-03-28 11:05 ` [RFC][PATCH] PM / Platform: Remove __weak definitions of runtime Magnus Damm
2011-03-28 11:05 ` [RFC][PATCH] PM / Platform: Remove __weak definitions of runtime PM callbacks Magnus Damm
2011-03-28 19:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-03-28 19:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-03-28 19:43 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-05 7:17 ` Magnus Damm
2011-04-05 7:17 ` [RFC][PATCH] PM / Platform: Remove __weak definitions of runtime Magnus Damm
2011-04-05 7:17 ` [RFC][PATCH] PM / Platform: Remove __weak definitions of runtime PM callbacks Magnus Damm
2011-04-06 4:24 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-06 4:24 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-06 4:24 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-03-28 11:05 ` Magnus Damm
2011-03-29 3:13 ` Paul Mundt
2011-03-29 3:13 ` Paul Mundt
2011-03-29 3:13 ` Paul Mundt
2011-04-06 22:35 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-06 22:35 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07 5:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-07 5:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2011-04-07 5:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-07 5:48 ` Grant Likely
2011-04-07 5:48 ` [RFC][PATCH] PM / Platform: Remove __weak definitions of runtime Grant Likely
2011-04-07 5:48 ` [RFC][PATCH] PM / Platform: Remove __weak definitions of runtime PM callbacks Grant Likely
2011-04-07 6:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-07 6:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-07 6:15 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-07 7:09 ` [RFC][PATCH] PM / Platform: Remove __weak definitions of runtime Grant Likely
2011-04-07 7:09 ` [RFC][PATCH] PM / Platform: Remove __weak definitions of runtime PM callbacks Grant Likely
2011-04-07 7:09 ` Grant Likely
2011-04-07 5:44 ` [RFC][PATCH] PM / Platform: Remove __weak definitions of runtime Grant Likely
2011-04-07 5:44 ` [RFC][PATCH] PM / Platform: Remove __weak definitions of runtime PM callbacks Grant Likely
2011-04-07 5:44 ` Grant Likely
2011-04-06 22:35 ` Kevin Hilman
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-03-26 23:58 Rafael J. Wysocki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201104070729.45484.rjw@sisk.pl \
--to=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=khilman@ti.com \
--cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-sh@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=magnus.damm@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.