From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751442AbeAEBXo (ORCPT + 1 other); Thu, 4 Jan 2018 20:23:44 -0500 Received: from esa2.microchip.iphmx.com ([68.232.149.84]:43010 "EHLO esa2.microchip.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751342AbeAEBXl (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jan 2018 20:23:41 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,316,1511852400"; d="scan'208";a="10149412" Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/6] can: m_can: Add PM Runtime To: Faiz Abbas , Marc Kleine-Budde , , , CC: , , , , , , , References: <1513949488-13026-1-git-send-email-faiz_abbas@ti.com> <1513949488-13026-4-git-send-email-faiz_abbas@ti.com> <1308ee81-a1e9-ac5a-2d97-334fa825ef8d@ti.com> <7d857263-14a7-6001-8f13-42d80f757573@pengutronix.de> <6bdaab16-cb16-e039-473c-52dd295bd4ba@ti.com> From: "Yang, Wenyou" Message-ID: Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2018 09:23:32 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6bdaab16-cb16-e039-473c-52dd295bd4ba@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On 2018/1/4 23:17, Faiz Abbas wrote: > Hi, > > On Wednesday 03 January 2018 08:47 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >> On 01/03/2018 04:06 PM, Faiz Abbas wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wednesday 03 January 2018 07:55 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >>>> On 01/03/2018 01:39 PM, Faiz Abbas wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday 02 January 2018 09:37 PM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >>>>>> On 12/22/2017 02:31 PM, Faiz Abbas wrote: >>>>>>> From: Franklin S Cooper Jr >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Add support for PM Runtime which is the new way to handle managing clocks. >>>>>>> However, to avoid breaking SoCs not using PM_RUNTIME leave the old clk >>>>>>> management approach in place. >>>>>> There is no PM_RUNTIME anymore since 464ed18ebdb6 ("PM: Eliminate >>>>>> CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME") >>>>> Ok. Will change the commit message. >>>>> >>>>>> Have a look at the discussion: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9436507/ : >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, I admit it would be nicer if drivers didn't have to worry about >>>>>>>> whether or not CONFIG_PM was enabled. A slightly cleaner approach >>>>>>>> from the one outlined above would have the probe routine do this: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> my_power_up(dev); >>>>>>>> pm_runtime_set_active(dev); >>>>>>>> pm_runtime_get_noresume(dev); >>>>>>>> pm_runtime_enable(dev); >>>>> This discussion seems to be about cases in which CONFIG_PM is not >>>>> enabled. CONFIG_PM is always selected in the case of omap devices. >>>> Yes, but in the commit message you state that you need to support >>>> systems that don't have PM_RUNTIME enabled. The only mainline SoCs I see >>>> is "arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d2.dtsi" so far. Please check if they select >>>> CONFIG_PM, then we can make the driver much simpler. >>> Actually the old clock management (for hclk which is the interface >>> clock) is still required as mentioned in the cover letter. Will change >>> the rather misleading description. >> Ok. So you can use the code as discussed on >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9436507/ ? > Looking at the kernel configuration, it seems like SAMA5D2 platform > selects CONFIG_PM (Wenyou, please confirm). Confirmed.  The CONFIG_PM is selected. > So, it seems like the only > users of this driver always have CONFIG_PM enabled. > > So I guess the best way is to maintain the current code for pm_runtime_* > and move the clock enable/disable to pm_runtime callbacks. > > Something like this: > > m_can_runtime_resume() > { > clk_prepare_enable(cclk); > clk_prepare_enable(hclk); > } > > m_can_runtime_suspend() > { > clk_disable_unprepare(cclk); > clk_disable_unprepare(hclk); > } > > SET_RUNTIME_PM_OPS(m_can_runtime_suspend, m_can_runtime_resume, NULL) > > static void m_can_start(struct net_device *dev) > { > pm_runtime_get_sync(dev) > ... > } > > static void m_can_stop(struct net_device *dev) > { > ... > pm_runtime_put_sync(dev) > } > > Does that sound okay? If yes, I will go work on the implementation. > > Thanks, > Faiz Best Regards, Wenyou Yang