All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] ARM: runtime PM: consolidate runtime PM implementations
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 17:17:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87hbaa7zhs.fsf@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871v1eaz0u.fsf@ti.com> (Kevin Hilman's message of "Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:58:57 -0700")

Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> writes:

[...]

> Replacing the PM ops for all devices was done on OMAP and SH-mobile
> because that was the only approach we had.  Now that we have device
> power domains (thanks Rafael!), we can be more selective about which
> devices to apply them to.
>
> Note that my RFC patch/series did not do the selective part of deciding
> which devices to override and which ones not to, that part will be
> platform specific.  

Actually, thinking about this a little more, my patch actually does
select only relevant devices, and not *all* platform devices.

In my patch, the device power domain pointers are only added for devices
where a clk_get() actually succeeds.  In the original version, the
runtime PM hooks are overridden for *all* platform devices, but ones
that have no clock (or where clk_get() failed) have the additional
overhead of still calling the custom PM ops, but the custom ops have
nothing to do.

Kevin


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@suse.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
	"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@suse.de>,
	Linux-pm mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] ARM: runtime PM: consolidate runtime PM implementations
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:17:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87hbaa7zhs.fsf@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871v1eaz0u.fsf@ti.com> (Kevin Hilman's message of "Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:58:57 -0700")

Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> writes:

[...]

> Replacing the PM ops for all devices was done on OMAP and SH-mobile
> because that was the only approach we had.  Now that we have device
> power domains (thanks Rafael!), we can be more selective about which
> devices to apply them to.
>
> Note that my RFC patch/series did not do the selective part of deciding
> which devices to override and which ones not to, that part will be
> platform specific.  

Actually, thinking about this a little more, my patch actually does
select only relevant devices, and not *all* platform devices.

In my patch, the device power domain pointers are only added for devices
where a clk_get() actually succeeds.  In the original version, the
runtime PM hooks are overridden for *all* platform devices, but ones
that have no clock (or where clk_get() failed) have the additional
overhead of still calling the custom PM ops, but the custom ops have
nothing to do.

Kevin


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: khilman@ti.com (Kevin Hilman)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH/RFC 0/6] ARM: runtime PM: consolidate runtime PM implementations
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 10:17:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87hbaa7zhs.fsf@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871v1eaz0u.fsf@ti.com> (Kevin Hilman's message of "Thu, 07 Apr 2011 07:58:57 -0700")

Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> writes:

[...]

> Replacing the PM ops for all devices was done on OMAP and SH-mobile
> because that was the only approach we had.  Now that we have device
> power domains (thanks Rafael!), we can be more selective about which
> devices to apply them to.
>
> Note that my RFC patch/series did not do the selective part of deciding
> which devices to override and which ones not to, that part will be
> platform specific.  

Actually, thinking about this a little more, my patch actually does
select only relevant devices, and not *all* platform devices.

In my patch, the device power domain pointers are only added for devices
where a clk_get() actually succeeds.  In the original version, the
runtime PM hooks are overridden for *all* platform devices, but ones
that have no clock (or where clk_get() failed) have the additional
overhead of still calling the custom PM ops, but the custom ops have
nothing to do.

Kevin

  reply	other threads:[~2011-04-07 17:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-04-07  0:02 [PATCH/RFC 0/6] ARM: runtime PM: consolidate runtime PM implementations Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02 ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02 ` [PATCH/RFC 1/6] ARM: sh-mobile: runtime PM: convert to device powerdomains Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02 ` [PATCH/RFC 2/6] OMAP2+: PM: move runtime PM implementation to use device power domains Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  5:49   ` [PATCH/RFC 2/6] OMAP2+: PM: move runtime PM implementation to Grant Likely
2011-04-07  5:49     ` [PATCH/RFC 2/6] OMAP2+: PM: move runtime PM implementation to use device power domains Grant Likely
2011-04-07  5:49     ` Grant Likely
2011-06-09 14:30   ` Sakari Ailus
2011-06-09 16:37     ` Kevin Hilman
2011-06-10  6:57       ` N900 USB fix (Was: Re: [PATCH/RFC 2/6] OMAP2+: PM: move runtime PM implementation to use device power domains) Sakari Ailus
2011-06-13  8:28         ` Jarkko Nikula
2011-06-13  8:46           ` Felipe Balbi
2011-06-13  8:47             ` Felipe Balbi
2011-04-07  0:02 ` [PATCH/RFC 3/6] OMAP1: runtime PM: drop platform bus implementation Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02 ` [PATCH/RFC 4/6] ARM: move SH-mobile runtime PM to arm/common for sharing with other platforms Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07 16:56   ` Paul Mundt
2011-04-07 16:56     ` Paul Mundt
2011-04-07 16:56     ` Paul Mundt
2011-04-07 17:08     ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07 17:08       ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07 17:08       ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07 22:35       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-07 22:35         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-07 22:35         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-08  0:38         ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-08  0:38           ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-08  0:38           ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-08  5:01           ` Paul Mundt
2011-04-08  5:01             ` Paul Mundt
2011-04-08  5:01             ` Paul Mundt
2011-04-07  0:02 ` [PATCH/RFC 5/6] ARM: use common clock-based runtime PM implementation on SH-mobile & OMAP1 Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02 ` [PATCH/RFC 6/6] Revert "driver core: platform_bus: allow runtime override of dev_pm_ops" Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  0:02   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07  5:38 ` [PATCH/RFC 0/6] ARM: runtime PM: consolidate runtime PM implementations Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-07  5:38   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-07  5:38   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-07 14:58   ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07 14:58     ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07 14:58     ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07 17:17     ` Kevin Hilman [this message]
2011-04-07 17:17       ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07 17:17       ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07 22:31       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-07 22:31       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-07 22:31         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-07 22:31         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-04-08  0:32         ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-08  0:32         ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-08  0:32           ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-08  0:32           ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07 17:17     ` Kevin Hilman
2011-04-07 14:58   ` Kevin Hilman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87hbaa7zhs.fsf@ti.com \
    --to=khilman@ti.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.