From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 20:03:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/10 v6] PM / Domains: Support for generic I/O PM domains (v7) Message-Id: <201107012203.58283.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Id: References: <201106112223.04972.rjw@sisk.pl> <201106252326.23837.rjw@sisk.pl> <87tyb5yipq.fsf@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <87tyb5yipq.fsf@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Kevin Hilman Cc: Linux PM mailing list , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Magnus Damm , Paul Walmsley , Alan Stern , LKML , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mundt On Friday, July 01, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki > > > > Introduce common headers, helper functions and callbacks allowing > > platforms to use simple generic power domains for runtime power > > management. > > > > Introduce struct generic_pm_domain to be used for representing > > power domains that each contain a number of devices and may be > > parent domains or subdomains with respect to other power domains. > > Among other things, this structure includes callbacks to be > > provided by platforms for performing specific tasks related to > > power management (i.e. ->stop_device() may disable a device's > > clocks, while ->start_device() may enable them, ->power_off() is > > supposed to remove power from the entire power domain > > and ->power_on() is supposed to restore it). > > > > Introduce functions that can be used as power domain runtime PM > > callbacks, pm_genpd_runtime_suspend() and pm_genpd_runtime_resume(), > > as well as helper functions for the initialization of a power > > domain represented by a struct generic_power_domain object, > > adding a device to or removing a device from it and adding or > > removing subdomains. > > > > Introduce configuration option CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS to be > > selected by the platforms that want to use the new code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Hilman Thanks! > While I still don't think this is generic enough for some more > complicated SoCs, it most certainly a huge step in the right direction, > and I think we can address the other complexities with additional > patches as needed. That's my intention. > Thanks Rafael for all your hard work on this and putting up with my > nagging. ;) I don't mind that at all, it kind of helps to focus on important stuff. ;-) Rafael