Hi Will, On 05/30/2012 08:29 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi Kevin, > > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:50:01PM +0100, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> 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? > > My plan for the armpmu reservation is to kill the global reservation scheme > that we currently have and push those function pointers into the arm_pmu, > so that fits with what you'd like. > > The only concern I have is that we need the mutual exclusion even when we > don't have support for runtime PM. If we can solve that then I'm fine with > the approach. I am not sure I follow your last point. Can you elaborate a little more? Thanks 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
