On 04/22/2013 12:03 PM, Inki Dae wrote: > > Also looks good to me. But what if power domain was disabled without pm > > runtime? In this case, you must enable the power domain at machine code or > > bootloader somewhere. This way would not only need some hard codes to turn > > the power domain on but also not manage power management fully. This is same > > as only the use of pm runtime interface(needing some hard codes without pm > > runtime) so I don't prefer to add clk_enable/disable to fimd probe(). I quite > > tend to force only the use of pm runtime as possible. So please add the hard > > codes to machine code or bootloader like you did for power domain if you > > want to use drm fimd without pm runtime. > > That's not how the runtime PM, clock subsystems work: > > 1) When CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is disabled, all the used hardware must be kept > powered on all the time. > > 2) Common Clock Framework will always gate all clocks that have zero > enable_count. Note that CCF support for Exynos is already merged for 3.10 and > it will be the only available clock support method for Exynos. > > AFAIK, drivers must work correctly in both cases, with CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME > enabled and disabled. > > > Then is the driver worked correctly if the power domain to this device was > disabled at bootloader without CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME and with clk_enable()? I > think, in this case, the device wouldn't be worked correctly because the power > of the device remains off. So you must enable the power domain somewhere. What > is the difference between these two cases? How about making the driver dependant on PM_RUNTIME and making it always use pm_runtime_* API, regardless if the platform actually implements runtime PM or not ? Is there any issue in using the Runtime PM core always, rather than coding any workarounds in drivers when PM_RUNTIME is disabled ? Thanks, Sylwester _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
