From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jon-hunter@ti.com (Jon Hunter) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 11:50:15 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: PMU: fix runtime PM enable In-Reply-To: <20121025164714.GK11267@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1351024268-26734-1-git-send-email-jon-hunter@ti.com> <20121024093150.GA23775@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <5087F84B.9070705@ti.com> <20121024143204.GF7339@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <508803DF.7020902@ti.com> <20121024172325.GK7339@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <5088284D.40404@ti.com> <87vcdy33ma.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <20121025164714.GK11267@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <50896DC7.80704@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/25/2012 11:47 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:42:21PM +0100, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Jon Hunter writes: >>> On 10/24/2012 12:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote: >>>> 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. > > Thanks Kevin, I'm fine with that. Jon: want me to write a patch or do you > have something I can take into the ARM perf tree (if the latter, please > base against perf/updates)? I can easily spin this. Will base on top of your branch. Cheers Jon