From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 11/14] soc: tegra: pmc: Add generic PM domain support Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:52:31 +0000 Message-ID: <56BC67EF.4080206@nvidia.com> References: <1453998832-27383-1-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> <1453998832-27383-12-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> <56BB7AF4.8040708@nvidia.com> <56BC50C2.7050609@nvidia.com> <56BC5EE0.2040804@nvidia.com> <56BC61ED.6000201@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ulf Hansson Cc: Mark Rutland , Alexandre Courbot , Ian Campbell , Pawel Moll , Kevin Hilman , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Stephen Warren , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Rob Herring , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Thierry Reding , Kumar Gala , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 11/02/16 10:37, Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] > >>>> >>>> Why not make pm_genpd_remove() to behave as you describe for >>>> pm_genpd_remove_tail()? >>>> That's probably the only sane way to remove genpds anyhow!? >>> >>> Simply to offer flexibility. I could see that for some devices that have >>> no dependencies between pm-domains and have a static list of pm-domains, >>> they can simply call pm_genpd_remove() for a given pm-domain. However, >>> that said, I can envision a case where a single pm-domain would be >>> removed by itself and so may be there is no benefit? >> >> By the way, do you think that instead of passing the struct device * to >> pm_genpd_remove(), we should just have a void *dev_id in the same way >> the request_irq()/free_irq() work? In other words, it would allow people >> to use the struct device or struct device_node, etc? > > Hmm. Do you think that would make a difference for the power controller drivers? > > I am thinking that genpd might perhaps benefit from being able to use > the device pointer for other purposes as well!? > Giving a void *, will prevent that, won't it? Yes it will. Ok, let's stick with struct device for now. Cheers Jon From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jonathanh@nvidia.com (Jon Hunter) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 10:52:31 +0000 Subject: [PATCH V5 11/14] soc: tegra: pmc: Add generic PM domain support In-Reply-To: References: <1453998832-27383-1-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> <1453998832-27383-12-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> <56BB7AF4.8040708@nvidia.com> <56BC50C2.7050609@nvidia.com> <56BC5EE0.2040804@nvidia.com> <56BC61ED.6000201@nvidia.com> Message-ID: <56BC67EF.4080206@nvidia.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 11/02/16 10:37, Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] > >>>> >>>> Why not make pm_genpd_remove() to behave as you describe for >>>> pm_genpd_remove_tail()? >>>> That's probably the only sane way to remove genpds anyhow!? >>> >>> Simply to offer flexibility. I could see that for some devices that have >>> no dependencies between pm-domains and have a static list of pm-domains, >>> they can simply call pm_genpd_remove() for a given pm-domain. However, >>> that said, I can envision a case where a single pm-domain would be >>> removed by itself and so may be there is no benefit? >> >> By the way, do you think that instead of passing the struct device * to >> pm_genpd_remove(), we should just have a void *dev_id in the same way >> the request_irq()/free_irq() work? In other words, it would allow people >> to use the struct device or struct device_node, etc? > > Hmm. Do you think that would make a difference for the power controller drivers? > > I am thinking that genpd might perhaps benefit from being able to use > the device pointer for other purposes as well!? > Giving a void *, will prevent that, won't it? Yes it will. Ok, let's stick with struct device for now. Cheers Jon