From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: base: add support to skip power management in device/driver model Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2019 15:29:08 +0000 Message-ID: <20190207152908.GC14464@e107155-lin> References: <20190206150935.12140-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20190207103600.GA14464@e107155-lin> <20190207150638.GB14464@e107155-lin> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ulf Hansson Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux PM , Greg Kroah-Hartman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Jisheng Zhang , Steve Longerbeam , Eugeniu Rosca , Joshua Frkuska , Eugeniu Rosca , Sudeep Holla List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 04:18:57PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:06, Sudeep Holla wrote: [...] > > Indeed, I was ignoring knowing that it's harmless. But more people > > started to complain, and Rafael suggested this which I agree as we > > have several pseudo devices created in the kernel that we can bypass > > some of these pm handling knowing we won't need it. > > Okay, I see. > > Anyway, I will likely need to restore part of this change, via my > cluster idling series then. As from that point, the cpu device that > you call device_set_pm_not_required() for, starts to be used from both > PM core and runtime PM point of view. But I guess that's okay then. > Ah I see. I can drop for CPU devices then. Since I didn't see any use for them, I set the flag, but I can drop it now or you can do that as part of that series. There are quite a few devices(especially the ones registered under system subsys can set this but I would take it separate once we settle on this). Also Rafael may have seen use for few more devices when he suggested this. -- Regards, Sudeep