[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTimbUQ9-U9yPkCspf=dL0JfyXqbSng@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 17:43:19 +0900
From: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...il.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Cc: Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH 1/2] PM / Runtime: Support for generic I/O
power domains
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 5:11 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
>
> Well, not really. There are a few things to consider.
>
> First, in general, there may be devices that have a real parent and belong
> to a power domain at the same time, so we can't "steal" the parent
> pointers from them.
Ah. right we only have one parent per device. Ok, setting a power
domain as a device's parent is not going to work for some devices.
However, I have some other questions.
1. pm_genpd_runtime_suspend and pm_genpd_runtime_resume are opened to
outside (not static and "extern"ed). Are devices supposed to call
pm_genpd_runtime_* directly? Shouldn't they be hidden so that devices
are forced to turn on/off power domains with runtime_pm framework
only? Is there any reason to expose them?
2. If we can assure that related clocks are not turned on when a
power domain is shutting down, it'd be nice.
I guess it would be sufficient to let it "WARN" at
gov->power_down_ok(). Is it the intention of governor?
Thank you! I also think this is going to help us a lot, too :)
- MyungJoo
--
MyungJoo Ham, Ph.D.
Mobile Software Platform Lab,
Digital Media and Communications (DMC) Business
Samsung Electronics
cell: 82-10-6714-2858
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists