From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC v2 02/12] PM / Domains: Add DT bindings for PM QoS device latencies Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:31:40 -0700 Message-ID: <7heguzbd4z.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> References: <1410893339-6361-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> <1410893339-6361-3-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1410893339-6361-3-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> (Geert Uytterhoeven's message of "Tue, 16 Sep 2014 20:48:49 +0200") Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , Simon Horman , Magnus Damm , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Ulf Hansson , Tomasz Figa , Philipp Zabel , Grygorii Strashko , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Geert Uytterhoeven writes: > PM QoS device start/stop and save/restore state latencies are more or > less properties of the hardware. > In legacy code, they're specified from platform code. > On DT platforms, their values should come from DT. > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven > --- > Should these properties be called "linux,*-latency"? Hmm, the start/stop latencies are clearly properties of the hardware, but the save/restore latencies seem to be a function of the driver. e.g., some drivers may keep a shadow copy of their registers in memory so the save time is minimized. I don't have too strong of an opinion on this, but probably the drivers should just add their own values to the start/stop latencies to add the linux specific overhead. Kevin