From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: Add support for additional dynamic states Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:05:24 -0700 Message-ID: <20130729090524.GY7656@atomide.com> References: <20130716090310.5541.36777.stgit@localhost> <20130716090536.5541.36289.stgit@localhost> <51E70953.1000601@wwwdotorg.org> <20130718072034.GO7656@atomide.com> <51E8401E.8040705@wwwdotorg.org> <20130719072927.GY7656@atomide.com> <51E98AEC.5000802@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51E98AEC.5000802@wwwdotorg.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Warren Cc: linus.walleij@linaro.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org * Stephen Warren [130719 11:59]: > On 07/19/2013 01:29 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > I'd vote for keeping the existing behaviour with pinctrl_select_state() > > when no active state is defined. > > Yes, I think that will work, since the active state cannot exist before > this new scheme is in place. Right. > But, this needs to be very clearly spell out in the DT binding > documentation: If you have states default/idle/sleep, they're complete > alternatives, whereas if you have states default/active/idle/sleep, the > latter 3 are alternatives that build on top of the first. I foresee mass > confusion, but perhaps I'm being pessimistic. I'm hoping we can automate the runtime PM handling with default/active/idle completely from the consumer driver point of view. And then when that's working, we can probably deprecate any runtime PM related handling using pinctr_select_state() and print warnings. And we can also improve the documentation so no new users will use the default/idle/sleep for runtime PM unless they really want to. Regards, Tony