[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190111135413.73dad0b2@windsurf>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 13:54:13 +0100
From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
Nava kishore Manne <navam@...inx.com>,
Josh Cartwright <josh.cartwright@...com>,
"monstr@...str.eu" <monstr@...str.eu>,
Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@...inx.com>,
Borsodi Petr <Petr.Borsodi@...z>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Steffen Trumtrar <s.trumtrar@...gutronix.de>,
Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>,
Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhraj@...inx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] gpio: zynq: Wakeup gpio controller when it is used
as IRQ controller
Hello Linus,
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:54:20 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> My stance is that the driver is responsible of enabling and managing
> runtime PM for its hardware block(s).
>
> Runtime PM in the core should only be added if the core needs to
> be aware about it, such as is the case when e.g. a block device
> needs to drain its write buffer before going to runtime sleep.
>
> I fail so see why the GPIO core need to be aware about this.
In this very same thread at
https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg600515.html, you kind of
proposed to handle this in the core in fact :-) Though indeed you said
that the core could provide helpers.
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists