From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] MMC / PM: Make it possible to use PM QoS latency
 constraints
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 09:06:59 +0200
Message-ID: <4F570913.8030805@intel.com>
References: <201203040101.53177.rjw@sisk.pl> <4F55E73C.10907@intel.com> <201203062247.21596.rjw@sisk.pl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:30695 "EHLO mga01.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751646Ab2CGHGw (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 7 Mar 2012 02:06:52 -0500
In-Reply-To: <201203062247.21596.rjw@sisk.pl>
Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Cc: "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>, Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>, Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@stericsson.com>, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

On 06/03/12 23:47, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 06, 2012, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 04/03/12 02:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> The goal of this patchset is to allow user space to control the
>>> responsiveness of the MMC stack related to runtime power management.
>>
>> I wonder why this is build into mmc and not just a generic runtime pm
>> facility. e.g.
>>
>> 	/* Set maximum resume latency target to 100ms */
>> 	pm_runtime_set_max_latency(dev, 100);
> 
> That actually is
> 
>  	dev_pm_qos_add_request(dev, req, 100);
> 
> where req is used as a handle for your request (it may be used, for
> example, to remove the request or update it).
> 
>> And then runtime pm will create sysfs attributes etc
> 
> Well, there may be an interface for drivers analogous to
> device_wakeup_enable()/device_wakeup_disable() allowing them
> to add/remove a sysfs attribute for user space to control
> a single PM QoS constraint.  That even sounds like a good idea. :-)

Does that mean you are going to change your patch?