On 02/29/2016 05:20 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Franklin S Cooper Jr. <fcooper@xxxxxx> [160229 15:12]: >> >> On 02/29/2016 04:55 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Franklin S Cooper Jr. <fcooper@xxxxxx> [160229 14:31]: >>>> On 02/29/2016 04:04 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>> Hmm but why are you also removing the pm_runtime calls? Those >>>>> actually do take care of gating the clocks via the interconnect >>>>> level code that is hwmod in this case. >>>> I removed all PM runtime calls that revolved around >>>> pwmss_submodule_state_change. Originally the driver would do >>>> a pm_runtime_get_sync then call pwmss_submodule_state_change >>>> and then immediately call pm_runtime_put_sync. Without >>>> pwmss_submodule_state_change those calls would be >>>> meaningless. I also removed pm_runtime calls in error paths >>>> that no longer existed. >>> Typically the interconnect level code can gate the clkctrl bit >>> for the module with PM runtime even with no other driver specific >>> registers. If you remove the pm_runtime calls, that does not >>> happen. >> So the clocks should be unlocked when ever the IP registers are >> being read/written or if the peripheral is being used for >> example >> the pwm signal is being generated. All these cases are already >> being handled. >> >> Using ecap driver as an example. >> >> Pm_runtime_get_sync is called within ecap_pwm_enable when >> the pwm signal is to be generated. Pm_runtime_put_sync is called >> when the pwm signal is to be stopped. >> >> When either the pwm signal polarity is set or pwm >> configuration is made >> then a pm_runtime_get_sync and pm_runtime_put_sync are >> called within >> the same function surrounding calls to the IP's registers. >> >> Probe is calling pm_runtime_enable while remove is calling >> pm_runtime_disable. > OK good to hear you have considered this. The above answers > my questions then thanks. > >> So the correct pm_runtime calls are being made from what I >> can see. >> I'm not sure I understand the concern since removing those >> calls aren't >> creating any kind of imbalance. > OK thanks for checking. > >> If I'm not addressing your concern please give me an example >> of where >> you see a possible issue. > No that's fine. I thought you're ripping out all of the the > pm_runtime based on just looking at the patch :) > >>> Also, how do you know this change does not affect the other >>> SoC variants using the same driver? >> I've tested these changes on AM335x GP and AM437x GP evms. >> AM335x >> and AM437x were the only other users of this driver. Sorry >> I should of >> documented this in my cover-letter. > OK good to hear. > > Thanks, > > Tony I know there are some comments regarding other patches in this patchset but this patch is unrelated and can be pulled in separately. Any objections to this or should I just resubmit this patch by itself? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
