Sudeep & Will， > -----Original Message----- > From: Neil Zhang > Sent: 2014年5月21日 19:47 > To: 'Sudeep Holla'; Will Deacon > Cc: 'linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; > 'linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' > Subject: RE: [PATCH v4] ARM: perf: save/restore pmu registers in pm notifier > > Sudeep， > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sudeep Holla [mailto:sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx] > > Sent: 2014年5月14日 17:32 > > To: Neil Zhang; Will Deacon > > Cc: Sudeep Holla; 'linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; > > 'linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; > > 'linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ARM: perf: save/restore pmu registers in pm > > notifier > > > > > > > > On 14/05/14 03:28, Neil Zhang wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Will Deacon [mailto:will.deacon@xxxxxxx] > > >> Sent: 2014年5月14日 2:45 > > >> To: Neil Zhang > > >> Cc: Sudeep Holla; 'linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; > > >> 'linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; > > >> 'linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'; 'devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' > > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ARM: perf: save/restore pmu registers in pm > > >> notifier > > >> > > >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:22:09AM +0100, Neil Zhang wrote: > > >>>>> The device tree bindings for power domains is under discussion > > >>>>> [1] > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks for the information. > > >>>> But it currently for device only, core related stuff are not supported. > > >>>> And is it really good to register power provider for core and let > > >>>> vfp / pmu etc to get it? > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> What's your suggestion about it? > > >>> Is it OK that I add it under the PMU node? > > >> > > >> I don't really mind. I just want to avoid re-inventing the wheel in > > >> a PMU-specific way and having to maintain that code forever because > > >> it ended up in our DT description. > > >> > > >> Will > > > > > > I will prepare another patch to add DT description under PMU since > > > there is no generic power domain support for pm notifier if no other > > concerns. > > > We can change the manner if there is generic power domain support > > > for > > pm notifier later. > > > Thanks. > > > > No, please don't add any DT bindings for power domains specific to PMU > > node. > > We can't change the DT bindings once added. > > > > As I pointed out the DT bindings for generic power domains are under > > discussion. > > See if you can reuse it, if not help in extending it so that it can be used. > > > > Sorry for reply later. > As I said before the under discussed generic power domain is not suitable for > CPU peripherals since they are all known belong to CPU or cluster power > domain. > If we want to follow the way they are discussion, we need to register core > and cluster power provider, and need vfp/gic/pmu etc to require them. > Is it really suitable? > Do you have any comments? If no, I would like to put it under PMU node. > > Regards, > > Sudeep > > > > > > Best Regards, > Neil Zhang Best Regards, Neil Zhang ��.n��������+%������w��{.n����z�{��ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
