From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
To: Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@newoldbits.com>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>,
linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Jean Pihet <j-pihet@ti.com>, Vibhore Vardhan <vvardhan@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] OMAP: PM: implement devices constraints APIs
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:03:09 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87oc5idfaa.fsf@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikN=1TLGoqLE4OBNdq4DDHAimGURA9ejy7TOZm7@mail.gmail.com> (Jean Pihet's message of "Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:03:37 +0100")
Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@newoldbits.com> writes:
[...]
>> Please create two different functions,
>> omap_device_set_max_dev_wakeup_lat() and
>> omap_device_set_min_bus_tput(). Documentation/CodingStyle chapter 6.
>>
> It has been agreed (in weekly calls) to have two functions at the OMAP
> PM level but only one function with a class parameter at the
> omap_device level. This allows easier maintenance and clean-up later.
> Kevin, is that corrcet?
Yes, that is my preference (but Paul is the maintainer of these layers,
so he has the final say.) What I would like to see is a more generic
API at the omap_device level which can easily be extended to handle new
constraints (by adding a new 'class'), without having to grow the API
each time.
That being said, you can still create the two functions that Paul
mentioned above and just have the generic function call those based on
class.
The only question then is which interface the drivers will eventually
use. I much prefer keeping the driver interface to a simple set of add
& remove constraint functions where the type is determined by class:
Today we have:
- max wakeup latency
- min bus througput
but eventually we may also want
- min frequency
- max frequency (thermal)
- etc.
Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: khilman@ti.com (Kevin Hilman)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] OMAP: PM: implement devices constraints APIs
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 10:03:09 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87oc5idfaa.fsf@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikN=1TLGoqLE4OBNdq4DDHAimGURA9ejy7TOZm7@mail.gmail.com> (Jean Pihet's message of "Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:03:37 +0100")
Jean Pihet <jean.pihet@newoldbits.com> writes:
[...]
>> Please create two different functions,
>> omap_device_set_max_dev_wakeup_lat() and
>> omap_device_set_min_bus_tput(). ?Documentation/CodingStyle chapter 6.
>>
> It has been agreed (in weekly calls) to have two functions at the OMAP
> PM level but only one function with a class parameter at the
> omap_device level. This allows easier maintenance and clean-up later.
> Kevin, is that corrcet?
Yes, that is my preference (but Paul is the maintainer of these layers,
so he has the final say.) What I would like to see is a more generic
API at the omap_device level which can easily be extended to handle new
constraints (by adding a new 'class'), without having to grow the API
each time.
That being said, you can still create the two functions that Paul
mentioned above and just have the generic function call those based on
class.
The only question then is which interface the drivers will eventually
use. I much prefer keeping the driver interface to a simple set of add
& remove constraint functions where the type is determined by class:
Today we have:
- max wakeup latency
- min bus througput
but eventually we may also want
- min frequency
- max frequency (thermal)
- etc.
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-10 18:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-04 14:52 [PATCH 0/2] OMAP: PM: implement devices wakeup latency constraints APIs Jean Pihet
2011-03-04 14:52 ` Jean Pihet
2011-03-04 14:52 ` [PATCH 1/2] OMAP PM: create a PM layer plugin for the devices wakeup latency constraints Jean Pihet
2011-03-04 14:52 ` Jean Pihet
2011-03-08 1:09 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-03-08 1:09 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-03-04 14:52 ` [PATCH 2/2] OMAP: PM: implement devices wakeup latency constraints APIs Jean Pihet
2011-03-04 14:52 ` Jean Pihet
2011-03-08 2:15 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-03-08 2:15 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-03-08 15:54 ` Jean Pihet
2011-03-08 15:54 ` Jean Pihet
2011-03-08 17:33 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-03-08 17:33 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-03-09 19:19 ` [PATCH 2/2] OMAP: PM: implement devices " Jean Pihet
2011-03-09 19:19 ` Jean Pihet
2011-03-09 19:37 ` Jean Pihet
2011-03-09 19:37 ` Jean Pihet
2011-03-10 19:51 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-03-10 19:51 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-03-10 4:03 ` Paul Walmsley
2011-03-10 4:03 ` Paul Walmsley
2011-03-10 10:03 ` Jean Pihet
2011-03-10 10:03 ` Jean Pihet
2011-03-10 18:03 ` Kevin Hilman [this message]
2011-03-10 18:03 ` Kevin Hilman
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=87oc5idfaa.fsf@ti.com \
--to=khilman@ti.com \
--cc=j-pihet@ti.com \
--cc=jean.pihet@newoldbits.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul@pwsan.com \
--cc=vvardhan@ti.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.