From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2989DC4332F for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 18:17:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ABD261260 for ; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 18:17:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S243548AbhJGSTN (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:19:13 -0400 Received: from muru.com ([72.249.23.125]:41998 "EHLO muru.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233750AbhJGSTM (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2021 14:19:12 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by muru.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4AB980C7; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 18:17:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2021 21:17:16 +0300 From: Tony Lindgren To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Rob Herring , Linux ARM , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" , "open list:TI ETHERNET SWITCH DRIVER (CPSW)" , Rob Herring , Simon Horman , Suman Anna Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: bus: simple-pm-bus: Make clocks and power-domains optional Message-ID: References: <20211007124858.44011-1-tony@atomide.com> <20211007124858.44011-2-tony@atomide.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Geert Uytterhoeven [211007 17:57]: > Hi Tony, > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 7:24 PM Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Geert Uytterhoeven [211007 13:27]: > > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 2:49 PM Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > Even without clocks and power domains configured, simple-pm-bus is still > > > > different from simple-bus as simple-pm-bus enables runtime PM for the bus > > > > driver. > > > > > > Which you need to have working Runtime PM for child devices, right? ;-) > > > > Right. And based on what I remember we simply cannot do pm_runtime_enable() > > for simple-bus without breaking tons of devices. > > Why not? Do you have an example of what would break? > The only reason I created simple-pm-bus was because the DT people > objected to adding PM to simple-bus, as they considered it wrong > conceptually. AFAIK this wouldn't have caused any actual breakage. Oh OK, then I just remember the reasons wrong for the need for adding it as a driver. Regards, Tony