[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130729090524.GY7656@atomide.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:05:24 -0700
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc: linus.walleij@...aro.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: Add support for additional dynamic states
* Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> [130719 11:59]:
> On 07/19/2013 01:29 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >
> > I'd vote for keeping the existing behaviour with pinctrl_select_state()
> > when no active state is defined.
>
> Yes, I think that will work, since the active state cannot exist before
> this new scheme is in place.
Right.
> But, this needs to be very clearly spell out in the DT binding
> documentation: If you have states default/idle/sleep, they're complete
> alternatives, whereas if you have states default/active/idle/sleep, the
> latter 3 are alternatives that build on top of the first. I foresee mass
> confusion, but perhaps I'm being pessimistic.
I'm hoping we can automate the runtime PM handling with default/active/idle
completely from the consumer driver point of view. And then when that's
working, we can probably deprecate any runtime PM related handling using
pinctr_select_state() and print warnings. And we can also improve the
documentation so no new users will use the default/idle/sleep for runtime
PM unless they really want to.
Regards,
Tony
--
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