From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulf Hansson Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 16/16] ARM64: tegra: select PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:43:10 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1449241037-22193-1-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> <8579242.omBpg1aLr2@wuerfel> <11122786.kKumQ3Dhls@wuerfel> <5697D7E2.3030209@nvidia.com> <56A7A662.4090203@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56A7A662.4090203@nvidia.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jon Hunter Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Thierry Reding , Philipp Zabel , Stephen Warren , Alexandre Courbot , Rafael Wysocki , Kevin Hilman , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Vince Hsu , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org [...] > > Any more thoughts on this? > > I have been discussing with Thierry and we think that selecting PM for > tegra still makes the most sense. The question is, is this ok for > multi-configs? Yes, this is too me the best option. Additionally, for those tegra SoCs/platforms that needs PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS, it can safely select that as well. > > The only other suggestion/thought I have is to allow > PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF to be selected independently of PM so that we can > have minimal support for PM domains that allows you to register PM > domains with the kernel and their current state, but does not allow you > to control them, etc. This way tegra could always select > PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF regardless of PM, and we would be able to > determine if we can probe a device safely. > > I am not sure that Rafael is too keen on this approach but that is the > only alternative I have come up with. I think Rafael already made his point around this approach, which is a clear no. And I fully agree with it. Kind regards Uffe From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754435AbcA0JnW (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 04:43:22 -0500 Received: from mail-yk0-f177.google.com ([209.85.160.177]:33855 "EHLO mail-yk0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751884AbcA0JnM (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 04:43:12 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56A7A662.4090203@nvidia.com> References: <1449241037-22193-1-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> <8579242.omBpg1aLr2@wuerfel> <11122786.kKumQ3Dhls@wuerfel> <5697D7E2.3030209@nvidia.com> <56A7A662.4090203@nvidia.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:43:10 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 16/16] ARM64: tegra: select PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS From: Ulf Hansson To: Jon Hunter Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Thierry Reding , Philipp Zabel , Stephen Warren , Alexandre Courbot , Rafael Wysocki , Kevin Hilman , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Vince Hsu , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org [...] > > Any more thoughts on this? > > I have been discussing with Thierry and we think that selecting PM for > tegra still makes the most sense. The question is, is this ok for > multi-configs? Yes, this is too me the best option. Additionally, for those tegra SoCs/platforms that needs PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS, it can safely select that as well. > > The only other suggestion/thought I have is to allow > PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF to be selected independently of PM so that we can > have minimal support for PM domains that allows you to register PM > domains with the kernel and their current state, but does not allow you > to control them, etc. This way tegra could always select > PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF regardless of PM, and we would be able to > determine if we can probe a device safely. > > I am not sure that Rafael is too keen on this approach but that is the > only alternative I have come up with. I think Rafael already made his point around this approach, which is a clear no. And I fully agree with it. Kind regards Uffe From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ulf.hansson@linaro.org (Ulf Hansson) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:43:10 +0100 Subject: [PATCH V4 16/16] ARM64: tegra: select PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS In-Reply-To: <56A7A662.4090203@nvidia.com> References: <1449241037-22193-1-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> <8579242.omBpg1aLr2@wuerfel> <11122786.kKumQ3Dhls@wuerfel> <5697D7E2.3030209@nvidia.com> <56A7A662.4090203@nvidia.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org [...] > > Any more thoughts on this? > > I have been discussing with Thierry and we think that selecting PM for > tegra still makes the most sense. The question is, is this ok for > multi-configs? Yes, this is too me the best option. Additionally, for those tegra SoCs/platforms that needs PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS, it can safely select that as well. > > The only other suggestion/thought I have is to allow > PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF to be selected independently of PM so that we can > have minimal support for PM domains that allows you to register PM > domains with the kernel and their current state, but does not allow you > to control them, etc. This way tegra could always select > PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF regardless of PM, and we would be able to > determine if we can probe a device safely. > > I am not sure that Rafael is too keen on this approach but that is the > only alternative I have come up with. I think Rafael already made his point around this approach, which is a clear no. And I fully agree with it. Kind regards Uffe