From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752307AbaKQS0F (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:26:05 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.220.45]:49042 "EHLO mail-pa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751834AbaKQS0C (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:26:02 -0500 From: Kevin Hilman To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Ulf Hansson , Geert Uytterhoeven , Linux PM list , linaro-kernel , Grygorii Strashko , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , open list Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / domains: Kconfig: always enable PM_RUNTIME when genpd enabled References: <1415917702-6742-1-git-send-email-khilman@kernel.org> <7ha93t8z1q.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <6465990.KKns6W8hQE@vostro.rjw.lan> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:25:58 -0800 In-Reply-To: <6465990.KKns6W8hQE@vostro.rjw.lan> (Rafael J. Wysocki's message of "Mon, 17 Nov 2014 02:22:52 +0100") Message-ID: <7hioid3cqx.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "Rafael J. Wysocki" writes: > On Saturday, November 15, 2014 01:32:01 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> Hi Kevin, >> >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> >>> It makes little sense to use generic power domains without runtime PM. >> >> >> >> Does it? >> >> It still powers down the PM domains on system suspend (at least on my >> >> boards ;-) >> > >> > Sure, but your devices are also using runtime PM, so I'm not sure how >> > does that change my statement above? >> >> I do mean with CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME turned off. >> >> If PM domain support is disabled, s2ram will not power down the PM domains. > > But if PM_RUNTIME is enabled along with it, I don't think it will make much > of a different, will it? > > Building the kernel with genpd and without PM_RUNTIME is possible today, > but is it really useful? To me, it only seems to make people try to > reinvent the wheel "because PM_RUNTIME may be unset". > > I have to say I'm seriously considering to make PM_SLEEP select > PM_RUNTIME too as that would make quite a few things a *lot* simpler. Yes. If that were the case, we woudn't need the pm_runtime_force_* calls either. Kevin