From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 10:31:31 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v4] ARM: perf: save/restore pmu registers in pm notifier In-Reply-To: <9034CBD80F070943B59700D7F8149ED9A087573F@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> References: <1398133596-29170-1-git-send-email-zhangwm@marvell.com> <20140422103642.GF7484@arm.com> <175CCF5F49938B4D99B2E3EF7F558EBE5507A3B59B@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <20140423170821.GJ5649@arm.com> <175CCF5F49938B4D99B2E3EF7F558EBE5507A3C1F1@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <5360FB07.5030407@arm.com> <6106CAF835F351419ADA79E4836E6EC71B6A53C826@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <9034CBD80F070943B59700D7F8149ED9A0875730@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <20140513184503.GF16388@arm.com> <9034CBD80F070943B59700D7F8149ED9A087573F@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> Message-ID: <537337F3.4080300@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 14/05/14 03:28, Neil Zhang wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Will Deacon [mailto:will.deacon at arm.com] >> Sent: 2014?5?14? 2:45 >> To: Neil Zhang >> Cc: Sudeep Holla; 'linux at arm.linux.org.uk'; >> 'linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org'; 'linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org'; >> 'devicetree at vger.kernel.org' >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ARM: perf: save/restore pmu registers in pm notifier >> >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:22:09AM +0100, Neil Zhang wrote: >>>>> The device tree bindings for power domains is under discussion [1] >>>> >>>> Thanks for the information. >>>> But it currently for device only, core related stuff are not supported. >>>> And is it really good to register power provider for core and let >>>> vfp / pmu etc to get it? >>>> >>> >>> What's your suggestion about it? >>> Is it OK that I add it under the PMU node? >> >> I don't really mind. I just want to avoid re-inventing the wheel in a >> PMU-specific way and having to maintain that code forever because it ended >> up in our DT description. >> >> Will > > I will prepare another patch to add DT description under PMU since there is > no generic power domain support for pm notifier if no other concerns. > We can change the manner if there is generic power domain support for pm notifier later. > Thanks. No, please don't add any DT bindings for power domains specific to PMU node. We can't change the DT bindings once added. As I pointed out the DT bindings for generic power domains are under discussion. See if you can reuse it, if not help in extending it so that it can be used. Regards, Sudeep From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ARM: perf: save/restore pmu registers in pm notifier Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 10:31:31 +0100 Message-ID: <537337F3.4080300@arm.com> References: <1398133596-29170-1-git-send-email-zhangwm@marvell.com> <20140422103642.GF7484@arm.com> <175CCF5F49938B4D99B2E3EF7F558EBE5507A3B59B@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <20140423170821.GJ5649@arm.com> <175CCF5F49938B4D99B2E3EF7F558EBE5507A3C1F1@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <5360FB07.5030407@arm.com> <6106CAF835F351419ADA79E4836E6EC71B6A53C826@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <9034CBD80F070943B59700D7F8149ED9A0875730@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <20140513184503.GF16388@arm.com> <9034CBD80F070943B59700D7F8149ED9A087573F@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <9034CBD80F070943B59700D7F8149ED9A087573F-r8ILAu4/owuq90oVIqnETxL4W9x8LtSr@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Neil Zhang , Will Deacon Cc: Sudeep Holla , "'linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org'" , "'linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org'" , "'linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org'" , "'devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org'" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 14/05/14 03:28, Neil Zhang wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Will Deacon [mailto:will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org] >> Sent: 2014=E5=B9=B45=E6=9C=8814=E6=97=A5 2:45 >> To: Neil Zhang >> Cc: Sudeep Holla; 'linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org'; >> 'linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org'; 'linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TaqPxH82wqD4g@public.gmane.org= g'; >> 'devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org' >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ARM: perf: save/restore pmu registers in pm = notifier >> >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:22:09AM +0100, Neil Zhang wrote: >>>>> The device tree bindings for power domains is under discussion [1= ] >>>> >>>> Thanks for the information. >>>> But it currently for device only, core related stuff are not suppo= rted. >>>> And is it really good to register power provider for core and let >>>> vfp / pmu etc to get it? >>>> >>> >>> What's your suggestion about it? >>> Is it OK that I add it under the PMU node? >> >> I don't really mind. I just want to avoid re-inventing the wheel in = a >> PMU-specific way and having to maintain that code forever because it= ended >> up in our DT description. >> >> Will > > I will prepare another patch to add DT description under PMU since th= ere is > no generic power domain support for pm notifier if no other concerns. > We can change the manner if there is generic power domain support for= pm notifier later. > Thanks. No, please don't add any DT bindings for power domains specific to PMU = node. We can't change the DT bindings once added. As I pointed out the DT bindings for generic power domains are under di= scussion. See if you can reuse it, if not help in extending it so that it can be = used. Regards, Sudeep -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" i= n the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754353AbaENJbf (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2014 05:31:35 -0400 Received: from service87.mimecast.com ([91.220.42.44]:53518 "EHLO service87.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754322AbaENJbc convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2014 05:31:32 -0400 Message-ID: <537337F3.4080300@arm.com> Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 10:31:31 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Neil Zhang , Will Deacon CC: Sudeep Holla , "'linux@arm.linux.org.uk'" , "'linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org'" , "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" , "'devicetree@vger.kernel.org'" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ARM: perf: save/restore pmu registers in pm notifier References: <1398133596-29170-1-git-send-email-zhangwm@marvell.com> <20140422103642.GF7484@arm.com> <175CCF5F49938B4D99B2E3EF7F558EBE5507A3B59B@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <20140423170821.GJ5649@arm.com> <175CCF5F49938B4D99B2E3EF7F558EBE5507A3C1F1@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <5360FB07.5030407@arm.com> <6106CAF835F351419ADA79E4836E6EC71B6A53C826@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <9034CBD80F070943B59700D7F8149ED9A0875730@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <20140513184503.GF16388@arm.com> <9034CBD80F070943B59700D7F8149ED9A087573F@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> In-Reply-To: <9034CBD80F070943B59700D7F8149ED9A087573F@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 May 2014 09:31:38.0613 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E748250:01CF6F57] X-MC-Unique: 114051410313001801 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 14/05/14 03:28, Neil Zhang wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Will Deacon [mailto:will.deacon@arm.com] >> Sent: 2014年5月14日 2:45 >> To: Neil Zhang >> Cc: Sudeep Holla; 'linux@arm.linux.org.uk'; >> 'linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org'; 'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'; >> 'devicetree@vger.kernel.org' >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ARM: perf: save/restore pmu registers in pm notifier >> >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:22:09AM +0100, Neil Zhang wrote: >>>>> The device tree bindings for power domains is under discussion [1] >>>> >>>> Thanks for the information. >>>> But it currently for device only, core related stuff are not supported. >>>> And is it really good to register power provider for core and let >>>> vfp / pmu etc to get it? >>>> >>> >>> What's your suggestion about it? >>> Is it OK that I add it under the PMU node? >> >> I don't really mind. I just want to avoid re-inventing the wheel in a >> PMU-specific way and having to maintain that code forever because it ended >> up in our DT description. >> >> Will > > I will prepare another patch to add DT description under PMU since there is > no generic power domain support for pm notifier if no other concerns. > We can change the manner if there is generic power domain support for pm notifier later. > Thanks. No, please don't add any DT bindings for power domains specific to PMU node. We can't change the DT bindings once added. As I pointed out the DT bindings for generic power domains are under discussion. See if you can reuse it, if not help in extending it so that it can be used. Regards, Sudeep