From: khilman@deeprootsystems•com (Kevin Hilman)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: PMU: fix runtime PM enable
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:42:21 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87vcdy33ma.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5088284D.40404@ti.com> (Jon Hunter's message of "Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:41:33 -0500")
Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti•com> writes:
> On 10/24/2012 12:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 04:06:07PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2012 09:32 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> Hmmm, now I start to wonder whether your original idea of having separate
>>>> callbacks for enable/disable irq and resume/suspend doesn't make more sense.
>>>> Then the CTI magic can go in the irq management code and be totally separate
>>>> to the PM stuff.
>>>>
>>>> What do you reckon?
>>>
>>> The resume/suspend calls really replaced the enable/disable irq
>>> callbacks. That still seems like a good approach given that we need
>>> runtime PM for OMAP and PMU.
>>
>> Ok, perhaps splitting it up isn't worth it then. I'm still not convinced
>> either way.
>
> Given that we needed to employ runtime PM for OMAP, adding the handlers
> is a natural progression and fits more with the PM framework model.
>
>>>> Nah, we should be able to fix this in the platdata, I'd just rather have
>>>> function pointers instead of state variables in there.
>>>
>>> Well, we could pass a pointer to pm_runtime_enable() function in the
>>> platdata.
>>
>> What do other drivers do? Grepping around, I see calls to pm_runtime_enable
>> made in various drivers and, given that you pass the device in there, what's
>> the problem with us just calling that unconditionally from perf? I know you
>> said that will work for OMAP, but I'm trying to understand the effect that
>> has on PM-aware platforms that don't require this for the PMU (since this
>> seems to be per-device).
>
> I had done this initially when testing on OMAP platforms that do and
> don't require runtime PM for PMU. I don't see any side affect of this,
> however, may be Kevin could comment on if that is ok. It would be the
> best approach.
Unconditonally enabling runtime PM should be fine. It may add a slight
bit of overhead calling runtime PM functions that ultimately do nothing
(because there are no callbacks), but it will be harmless.
Personally, I think that would be cleaner. The less pdata we need, the
better, IMO.
Kevin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-25 16:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-23 20:31 [PATCH] ARM: PMU: fix runtime PM enable Jon Hunter
2012-10-24 9:31 ` Will Deacon
2012-10-24 14:16 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-24 14:32 ` Will Deacon
2012-10-24 15:06 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-24 17:23 ` Will Deacon
2012-10-24 17:41 ` Jon Hunter
2012-10-25 16:42 ` Kevin Hilman [this message]
2012-10-25 16:47 ` Will Deacon
2012-10-25 16:50 ` Jon Hunter
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=87vcdy33ma.fsf@deeprootsystems.com \
--to=khilman@deeprootsystems$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox