Hi Kevin, On 05/30/2012 04:50 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: [...] > I'm guessing you probably know my thoughts since you've already thought > through how this should probably look. > > Basically, I don't like the result when we have to hack around missing > runtime PM support for a driver, so IMO, the driver should be updated. > > IOW, it looks to me like the armpmu driver should grow runtime PM > support. The current armpmu_release|reserve should probably be replaced > with runtime PM get/put, and the functionality in those functions would > be the runtime PM callbacks instead. > > Will, any objections to armpmu growing runtime PM support? > > Kevin > > P.S. Jon, for readability sake, any objections to moving the PMU device init > out of devices.c into pmu.c? devices.c is awful crowded. No objections. I am guessing that pmu was not supported back in the ARM9 days and so this is only really specific to omap2 devices. That being said, should this still go into plat-omap dir or just mach-omap2? Cheers Jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
