From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bryan Huntsman Subject: Re: PM QoS dynamic resource manager Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 16:03:20 -0700 Message-ID: <4C0ECC38.2000003@codeaurora.org> References: <20100525145223.GA4974@gvim.org> <20100608033333.GA23066@gvim.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Mike Chan Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, mark gross <640e9920@gmail.com>, markgross@thegnar.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/22/213 (I guess the details are in the >> archives) I'm happy to re-visit it. >> > > Interesting patch, it looks like having a "system wide bus" doesn't > easily apply to msm and tegra platforms. > An example of some things I would like to be able to control are i2c > and memory bus. > > I'm tempted to suggest adding two types memory and i2c but I'm not > sure how future proof this will be given the growing complexity in the > embedded hardware road-map. > What about the possibility of registering not one but several buses? > You could add a bus qos param, with a type enum, or bind to some > platform_driver or bus_driver > > Then there's the issue of having to deal with platform specific buses, > do you add this type to pm qos with only one user? Or have some > platform bus types defined somewhere. The generic code of min / max > for resource X can be useful so everyone doesn't spin their own > resource framework in their own architecture. > > -- Mike Mike, one idea I'm exploring is having platform-specific busses with QoS constraints specified via runtime_pm as part of the LDM. Adding dynamic class creation within pm_qos, or a type enum as you suggest, would work. However, I think this kind of behavior would fit nicely within runtime_pm. - Bryan