Re: [RFC v2]: Issues implementing clock handling mechanism within UART driver

[Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1304 bytes --]

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 04:54:44PM +0530, Govindraj wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> 
> Thanks for replying.
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 02:59:55PM +0530, Govindraj.R wrote:
> >> Proposal:
> >> --------
> >>       1. For the UART, follow the current approach of locking the console in
> >>          Idle/Suspend path before cutting the clock but using pm_runtime_putsync.
> >>          That is, continue using the prepare/resume Idle calls in idle path.
> >
> > I believe you should be using ->prepare() to prevent that any other
> > work on UART won't trigger a console_write() right now. Maybe only
> > queueing the work for after ->complete() or, maybe, just ignoring the
> > work and loosing some prints, dunno.
> >
> 
> Yes true, for suspend path but for Idle path we don't have any such
> mechanism.

aha... good point ;-)

> I have done clock gating in idle path integrating irq chaining patches.
> hosted in gitorious here[1].
> 
> Was consolidating whether this approach is OK,
> or
> Are there any other approaches that I should consider?

why don't you also start queueing writes after the first call to
runtime_suspend() and flush them after the first call runtime_resume()??

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]