[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:38:22 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
Cc: Chao Xu <caesarxuchao@...il.com>,
Linux-OMAP <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"santosh.shilimkar@...com" <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
ext Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ext Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT/PATCH V3] gpio: omap: refresh patch "be more aggressive
with pm_runtime" against v3.12-rc5
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 07:19:35PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> One thing caught my eye, you add:
>>
>> > +static void _aggressive_pm_runtime_get_sync(struct gpio_bank *bank)
>> > +static void _aggressive_pm_runtime_put(struct gpio_bank *bank)
>> (..)
>>
>> Then everywhere:
>>
>> > + _aggressive_pm_runtime_get_sync(bank);
>> (...)
>> > + _aggressive_pm_runtime_put(bank);
>>
>> Aggressive, argh, runtime PM is agressive by definition. If you
>> want to switch this on and off use the compile option
>> to enable/disable runtime PM altogether and do not wrap it
>> like this.
>
> heh, OMAP doesn't work without pm_runtime.
Hm then maybe that needs to be fixed ... or the runtime PM
people need to be convinced to support different levels of
aggressiveness in the core?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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