From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] mtd: spi-nor: cadence-quadspi: Add runtime PM support Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2017 15:51:55 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20170924105924.23923-1-vigneshr@ti.com> <20170924105924.23923-6-vigneshr@ti.com> <3a1160f9-a0ae-c84c-d209-af97c3c3b0f6@gmail.com> <4ee69ea4-14cc-4305-bf3f-8fe76d43bf6b@ti.com> <038919d3-ff32-d0a7-4c0a-3be16436052d@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <038919d3-ff32-d0a7-4c0a-3be16436052d@ti.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Vignesh R , Cyrille Pitchen Cc: David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , Boris Brezillon , Rob Herring , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel , matthew.gerlach@linux.intel.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 09/24/2017 03:27 PM, Vignesh R wrote: > > > On 9/24/2017 6:42 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 09/24/2017 03:08 PM, Vignesh R wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 9/24/2017 5:31 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>> On 09/24/2017 12:59 PM, Vignesh R wrote: >>>>> Add pm_runtime* calls to cadence-quadspi driver. This is required to >>>>> switch on QSPI power domain on TI 66AK2G SoC during probe. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Vignesh R >>>> >>>> Are you planning to add some more fine-grained PM control later? >>> >>> Yes, I will need to add fine-grained PM control at some point. But, for >>> now SoC does not really support low power mode or runtime power saving >>> option. >>> The fact that driver still uses clk_prepare_*() calls to enable/disable >>> clocks instead of pm_*() calls makes it a bit tricky though. >>> >>> Just figured out I forgot to add cleanup code in error handling path of >>> probe(). Will fix that and send a v4. >> >> OK, fine. Cleanups are welcome. The SoCFPGA doesn't do much runtime PM >> either, so it's fine for now. >> > > Ok thanks! Do you know if pm_runtime_get_sync() can enable clocks for > QSPI on SoCFPGA or if clk_prepare_enable() is needed? Just trying to see > if its possible to get rid of clk_*() calls in favor of pm_*() calls. Not of the top of my head, sorry. +CC Matthew, he should know. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut