From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>,
linux-omap <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: PMU: fix runtime PM enable
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:23:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121024172325.GK7339@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <508803DF.7020902@ti.com>
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 04:06:07PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 09:32 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hmmm, now I start to wonder whether your original idea of having separate
> > callbacks for enable/disable irq and resume/suspend doesn't make more sense.
> > Then the CTI magic can go in the irq management code and be totally separate
> > to the PM stuff.
> >
> > What do you reckon?
>
> The resume/suspend calls really replaced the enable/disable irq
> callbacks. That still seems like a good approach given that we need
> runtime PM for OMAP and PMU.
Ok, perhaps splitting it up isn't worth it then. I'm still not convinced
either way.
> > Nah, we should be able to fix this in the platdata, I'd just rather have
> > function pointers instead of state variables in there.
>
> Well, we could pass a pointer to pm_runtime_enable() function in the
> platdata.
What do other drivers do? Grepping around, I see calls to pm_runtime_enable
made in various drivers and, given that you pass the device in there, what's
the problem with us just calling that unconditionally from perf? I know you
said that will work for OMAP, but I'm trying to understand the effect that
has on PM-aware platforms that don't require this for the PMU (since this
seems to be per-device).
Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: PMU: fix runtime PM enable
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 18:23:25 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121024172325.GK7339@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <508803DF.7020902@ti.com>
On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 04:06:07PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 09:32 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Hmmm, now I start to wonder whether your original idea of having separate
> > callbacks for enable/disable irq and resume/suspend doesn't make more sense.
> > Then the CTI magic can go in the irq management code and be totally separate
> > to the PM stuff.
> >
> > What do you reckon?
>
> The resume/suspend calls really replaced the enable/disable irq
> callbacks. That still seems like a good approach given that we need
> runtime PM for OMAP and PMU.
Ok, perhaps splitting it up isn't worth it then. I'm still not convinced
either way.
> > Nah, we should be able to fix this in the platdata, I'd just rather have
> > function pointers instead of state variables in there.
>
> Well, we could pass a pointer to pm_runtime_enable() function in the
> platdata.
What do other drivers do? Grepping around, I see calls to pm_runtime_enable
made in various drivers and, given that you pass the device in there, what's
the problem with us just calling that unconditionally from perf? I know you
said that will work for OMAP, but I'm trying to understand the effect that
has on PM-aware platforms that don't require this for the PMU (since this
seems to be per-device).
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-24 17:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-23 20:31 [PATCH] ARM: PMU: fix runtime PM enable Jon Hunter
2012-10-23 20:31 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-24 9:31 ` Will Deacon
2012-10-24 9:31 ` Will Deacon
2012-10-24 14:16 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-24 14:16 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-24 14:32 ` Will Deacon
2012-10-24 14:32 ` Will Deacon
2012-10-24 15:06 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-24 15:06 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-24 17:23 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2012-10-24 17:23 ` Will Deacon
2012-10-24 17:41 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-24 17:41 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-25 16:42 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-25 16:42 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-10-25 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2012-10-25 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2012-10-25 16:50 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-25 16:50 ` Jon Hunter
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=20121024172325.GK7339@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=jon-hunter@ti.com \
--cc=khilman@deeprootsystems.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
/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.