From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] gpio: zynq: Wakeup gpio controller when it is used as IRQ controller Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 13:54:13 +0100 Message-ID: <20190111135413.73dad0b2@windsurf> References: <72d3cd83bed792a23ab60cf9b6d51b618f5aa084.1502103715.git.michal.simek@xilinx.com> <6da5fd79-fbc8-b613-954f-dcbe2ef8d6c5@xilinx.com> <20190107164210.3ecf37e8@windsurf> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Michal Simek , Nava kishore Manne , Josh Cartwright , "monstr@monstr.eu" , Peter Crosthwaite , Borsodi Petr , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , Rob Herring , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Steffen Trumtrar , =?UTF-8?B?U8O2cmVu?= Brinkmann , Shubhrajyoti Datta List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org Hello Linus, On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:54:20 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > My stance is that the driver is responsible of enabling and managing > runtime PM for its hardware block(s). > > Runtime PM in the core should only be added if the core needs to > be aware about it, such as is the case when e.g. a block device > needs to drain its write buffer before going to runtime sleep. > > I fail so see why the GPIO core need to be aware about this. In this very same thread at https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg600515.html, you kind of proposed to handle this in the core in fact :-) Though indeed you said that the core could provide helpers. Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com