Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] PM / Runtime: Add getter for querying the IRQ safe option

From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>,
	Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
	Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>,
	Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/5] PM / Runtime: Add getter for querying the IRQ safe option
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 10:54:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFrc26VhBQavy8pUXef2ZYxsg7LLp_P8_BN2vuovnuw59g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141031093318.GS27405@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>

On 31 October 2014 10:33, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 10:29:36AM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 31 October 2014 10:14, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com> wrote:
>> > On pon, 2014-10-20 at 11:04 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> >> Add a simple getter pm_runtime_is_irq_safe() for querying whether runtime
>> >> PM IRQ safe was set or not.
>> >>
>> >> Various bus drivers implementing runtime PM may use choose to suspend
>> >> differently based on IRQ safeness status of child driver (e.g. do not
>> >> unprepare the clock if IRQ safe is not set).
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>
>> >> Reviewed-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>> >
>> > Rafael, Len, Pavel,
>> >
>> > Is proposed API ok? Do you have any comments?
>> >
>> > I'll upload whole patchset to Russell's patch tracking system. However
>> > an ack from PM maintainer is probably needed.
>>
>> I would actually prefer the opposite. It's better if we can take these
>> patches through Rafaels tree.
>>
>> 1) I have posted patches for the amba bus, these may have merge
>> conflicts with your changes.
>> 2) We may start using the new runtime PM API within genpd as of now.
>
> Stop this broken thinking.  The solution is simple.
>
> Put the generic runtime PM changes into the PM tree in a separate /clean/
> branch.  Merge them into the PM-next branch.  Notify me where I can
> pull that /clean/ branch.
>
> I pull that clean branch into my tree, and then apply the AMBA specific
> patches on top.
>
> That means Rafael has the PM changes, I have the dependent PM changes,
> and I also have the AMBA changes, and no one ends up carrying changes
> which are inappropriate.

Okay, I have no concerns with this approach.

I have also checked the potential upcoming merge conflict in the amba
bus, since I doubt you will pull in bigger changes from his tree!?
Anyway, that conflict should be trivial to resolve if that happens.

Kind regards
Uffe