From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 4/6] ARM: move SH-mobile runtime PM to arm/common for sharing with other platforms Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:08:41 -0700 Message-ID: <8739lu9eg6.fsf@ti.com> References: <1302134569-22825-1-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> <1302134569-22825-5-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> <20110407165654.GD8052@linux-sh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110407165654.GD8052@linux-sh.org> (Paul Mundt's message of "Fri, 8 Apr 2011 01:56:54 +0900") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Mundt Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Magnus Damm , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Grant Likely , Greg Kroah-Hartman List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Paul Mundt writes: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 05:02:47PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> There is really nothing SH-mobile specific about this runtime PM >> implementation. Any platform wanting to implement runtime PM based on >> simple clock gating can use this implementation. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman > > This observation is wholly architecture agnostic, so it's not clear that > keeping it in arch/arm/common is any better. It seems that this would be > better suited for drivers/base/power/ with a generic Kconfig symbol. Sounds fine to me. Thanks for the review, Kevin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 17:08:41 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 4/6] ARM: move SH-mobile runtime PM to arm/common for sharing with other platforms Message-Id: <8739lu9eg6.fsf@ti.com> List-Id: References: <1302134569-22825-1-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> <1302134569-22825-5-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> <20110407165654.GD8052@linux-sh.org> In-Reply-To: <20110407165654.GD8052@linux-sh.org> (Paul Mundt's message of "Fri, 8 Apr 2011 01:56:54 +0900") MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Paul Mundt writes: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 05:02:47PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> There is really nothing SH-mobile specific about this runtime PM >> implementation. Any platform wanting to implement runtime PM based on >> simple clock gating can use this implementation. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman > > This observation is wholly architecture agnostic, so it's not clear that > keeping it in arch/arm/common is any better. It seems that this would be > better suited for drivers/base/power/ with a generic Kconfig symbol. Sounds fine to me. Thanks for the review, Kevin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@ti.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:08:41 -0700 Subject: [PATCH/RFC 4/6] ARM: move SH-mobile runtime PM to arm/common for sharing with other platforms In-Reply-To: <20110407165654.GD8052@linux-sh.org> (Paul Mundt's message of "Fri, 8 Apr 2011 01:56:54 +0900") References: <1302134569-22825-1-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> <1302134569-22825-5-git-send-email-khilman@ti.com> <20110407165654.GD8052@linux-sh.org> Message-ID: <8739lu9eg6.fsf@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Paul Mundt writes: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 05:02:47PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> There is really nothing SH-mobile specific about this runtime PM >> implementation. Any platform wanting to implement runtime PM based on >> simple clock gating can use this implementation. >> >> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman > > This observation is wholly architecture agnostic, so it's not clear that > keeping it in arch/arm/common is any better. It seems that this would be > better suited for drivers/base/power/ with a generic Kconfig symbol. Sounds fine to me. Thanks for the review, Kevin