[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpomS_dW64tf52MzcM0BLEgg+iZJveU9mXHgCyUp5qNKqTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:02:22 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Lists linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
Patch Tracking <patches@...aro.org>,
"cpufreq@...r.kernel.org" <cpufreq@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, jinchoi@...adcom.com,
Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@...aro.org>,
"Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa.bhat@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq: suspend/resume governors with PM notifiers
On 18 November 2013 19:07, Lan Tianyu <tianyu.lan@...el.com> wrote:
> The resume/suspend() must be stored in the struct driver->pm? :)
We certainly can't move back to increase redundancy by implementing
driver's specific stuff here :)
>> Apart from that even cpufreq would be a bit hacky as we don't really need
>> per-cpu callbacks..
>>
>
> This maybe depends on where we want the issue to be fixed, right?
> The cpufreq driver also can fix the issue if we run their cpu_driver
> resume/suspend callback earlier.
same as above..
> Another point, I just see cpuidle_resume() and cpuidle_pause() are called in
> the dpm_resume_noirq and dpm_suspend_noirq(). Not sure whether this can be
> applied to cpufreq.
I will still prefer syscore_ops instead of calling framework specific routines
directly from dpm_**() routines.. Don't know why this was done this way
for cpuidle..
--
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