From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] ARM: OMAP4: PMU: Add runtime PM support Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 10:05:53 -0500 Message-ID: <4FC788D1.5080009@ti.com> References: <1336599355-10983-1-git-send-email-jon-hunter@ti.com> <87wr3uelgp.fsf@ti.com> <4FC548A3.2040906@ti.com> <4FC54D3B.10301@ti.com> <87pq9l7306.fsf@ti.com> <20120531012923.GB8506@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from bear.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.41]:49058 "EHLO bear.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757391Ab2EaPGS (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 May 2012 11:06:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120531012923.GB8506@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Will Deacon Cc: Kevin Hilman , linux-omap , Ming Lei , Benoit Cousson , Paul Walmsley Hi Will, On 05/30/2012 08:29 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:50:01PM +0100, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Basically, I don't like the result when we have to hack around missing >> runtime PM support for a driver, so IMO, the driver should be updated. >> >> IOW, it looks to me like the armpmu driver should grow runtime PM >> support. The current armpmu_release|reserve should probably be replaced >> with runtime PM get/put, and the functionality in those functions would >> be the runtime PM callbacks instead. >> >> Will, any objections to armpmu growing runtime PM support? > > My plan for the armpmu reservation is to kill the global reservation scheme > that we currently have and push those function pointers into the arm_pmu, > so that fits with what you'd like. > > The only concern I have is that we need the mutual exclusion even when we > don't have support for runtime PM. If we can solve that then I'm fine with > the approach. I am not sure I follow your last point. Can you elaborate a little more? Thanks Jon