From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adam Belay Subject: Re: [RFC] A New Power Management API Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:01:48 -0400 Message-ID: <20050417230147.GC7793@neo.rr.com> References: <1113533193.3451.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200504161124.05846.david-b@pacbell.net> <1113770914.3451.107.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200504171529.17711.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============40355675636999289==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200504171529.17711.david-b@pacbell.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: David Brownell Cc: linux-pm@lists.osdl.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org --===============40355675636999289== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Sun, Apr 17, 2005 at 03:29:17PM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > On Sunday 17 April 2005 1:48 pm, Adam Belay wrote: > > > > So I think each clock could be a power resource. It looks like the > > current code isn't doing much more than turning them on and off. > > They should clk_use()/clk_unuse(), and automatically handle the > activation/deactivation of parent clocks. Some clocks are shared > between multiple devices ... so "on/off" doesn't suffice, those > devices' drivers rely on the clock framework to coordinate. (Or > were you thinking that on/off would match use/unuse? There's no > point to separate enable/disable calls IMO.) Yes, I was thinking power resources could replace use/unuse. So each device could associate a list of required resources by state. Then, when there are not any devices in a state that requires a given resource, the resource could be turned off. --===============40355675636999289== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline --===============40355675636999289==--