Re: [PATCH] ARM: PMU: fix runtime PM enable

[Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>]

Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com> writes:

> On 10/24/2012 12:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Given that we needed to employ runtime PM for OMAP, adding the handlers
> is a natural progression and fits more with the PM framework model.
>
>>>> 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).
>
> I had done this initially when testing on OMAP platforms that do and
> don't require runtime PM for PMU. I don't see any side affect of this,
> however, may be Kevin could comment on if that is ok. It would be the
> best approach.

Unconditonally enabling runtime PM should be fine.  It may add a slight
bit of overhead calling runtime PM functions that ultimately do nothing
(because there are no callbacks), but it will be harmless.

Personally, I think that would be cleaner.  The less pdata we need, the
better, IMO.

Kevin