From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 11:05:05 +0530 Message-ID: <20170206053505.GI3131@vireshk-i7> References: <20170116053007.GA15930@vireshk-i7> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pg0-f54.google.com ([74.125.83.54]:35987 "EHLO mail-pg0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750879AbdBFFfJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2017 00:35:09 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id v184so25176573pgv.3 for ; Sun, 05 Feb 2017 21:35:09 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170116053007.GA15930@vireshk-i7> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org To: Rafael Wysocki , khilman@baylibre.com, ulf.hansson@linaro.org Cc: linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Boyd , Nishanth Menon , Vincent Guittot , robh+dt@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, lina.iyer@linaro.org, rnayak@codeaurora.org On 16-01-17, 11:00, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 03-01-17, 16:36, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > Hi, > > > > An earlier series[1] tried to implement bindings for PM domain > > performance states. Rob Herring suggested that we can actually write the > > supporting code first instead of bindings, as that will make things > > easier to understand for all. > > > > The bindings [1] aren't discarded yet and this series is based on a > > version of those only. The bindings are only used by the last patch, > > which should not be applied and is only sent for completeness. > > > > All other patches can be reviewed/applied whenever the maintainers feel > > they look good. > > > > > > A brief summary of the problem this series is trying to solve: > > > > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of > > their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive > > integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state. > > > > We decided earlier that we should extend Power Domain framework to > > support active state power management as well. The power-domains until > > now were only concentrating on the idle state management of the device > > and this needs to change in order to reuse the infrastructure of power > > domains for active state management. > > > > The first 5 patches update the PM domain and QoS frameworks to support > > that and the last one presents the front end interface to it. > > > > All the patches are tested by hacking the OPP core a bit for now. > > Ping ! Ping !! -- viresh