[linux-pm] [PATCH/RFC] Runtime PM: ARM: subarch-specific extensions of pdev_archdata

[khilman@deeprootsystems.com (Kevin Hilman)]

Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca> wrote:
>> "Magnus Damm" <magnus.damm@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Kevin Hilman
>>><khilman@deeprootsystems.com> wrote:
>>>> Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Kevin Hilman
>>>>> <khilman@deeprootsystems.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Mikael Pettersson wrote:
>>>>>>> Eric Miao writes:
>>>>>>> ?> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Kevin Hilman
>>>>>>> ?> <khilman@deeprootsystems.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> ?> > On ARM platforms, power management can be very platform specific.
>>>>>>> ?> > This patch allows ARM subarches to extend the platform_device
>>>>>>> ?> > pdev_archdata for each subarch by creating a new struct pdev_machdata
>>>>>>> ?> > and allowing each subarch to customize it as needed.
>
>>>Do you remember what happened with this patch?
>>
>> I don't have all the details in front of me because I'm on my phone,
>> but I advised against pdev_archdata because it is
>> multiplatform-unfriendly.
>
> Ok, I did not expect that. =) But after thinking a bit it does make
> sense. I wonder what my options are. I'm not so fond of the idea to
> wrap the platform devices - that's not more multi-platform friendly,
> is it?

[sorry for the lag, been on vacation]

Wrapping is more multi-platform friendly because only platform-specific
code accesses the wrapped code.  It's also logically consistent as 
a struct device is contained by a platform_device which is then
contained by an omap_device (in our case.)   Only OMAP-specific code
ever knows about or touches that layer.

> How about using devres and platform bus notifiers?

That seems fine too, and probably better if the amount of data/code you need
is small.  In the OMAP case, it's rather complicated so it's cleaner
IMHO to keep it in a separate omap_device layer and struct.

> For a Runtime PM prototype using devres (instead of pdev_archdata or
> wrapping) look here:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/113605/
>
> To make it work with modules I propose adding a driver bind event:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/113865/
>
> Looks pretty multi-platform friendly to me. Any suggestions?

Your patches look multi-platform friendly, but there are still some
outstanding issues with making runtime PM support multi-platform
friendly that are not direclty related to the above patches.

1) weak symbols

We need to change the overriding of weak symbols into some form of
register/unregister so multiple platforms in the same kernel could work.
That's the easy one.   

2) custom vs. platform bus.

The other issue under discussion between Grant & myself[1] has been the
use of a custom bus instead of the platform bus.  Following your lead,
(and preferring that option) I continued to use the platform_bus since
I only need to override a few of the dev_pm_ops functions.

However, Grant is not happy about overriding the platform_bus.  He would
rather see each platform create a custom bus with it's own PM methods.

In this thread[1], I did a quick and dirty proof of concept to show that
it is possible, but quite frankly, I still much prefer continuing to use
the platform_bus since it is mostly identical.  

After I catch up on the rest of my mail, I will get back to this topic.

Kevin

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2010-June/018925.html