On 10/24/2012 12:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 04:06:07PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: >> On 10/24/2012 09:32 AM, Will Deacon wrote: >>> Hmmm, now I start to wonder whether your original idea of having separate >>> callbacks for enable/disable irq and resume/suspend doesn't make more sense. >>> Then the CTI magic can go in the irq management code and be totally separate >>> to the PM stuff. >>> >>> What do you reckon? >> >> The resume/suspend calls really replaced the enable/disable irq >> callbacks. That still seems like a good approach given that we need >> runtime PM for OMAP and PMU. > > Ok, perhaps splitting it up isn't worth it then. I'm still not convinced > either way. Given that we needed to employ runtime PM for OMAP, adding the handlers is a natural progression and fits more with the PM framework model. >>> Nah, we should be able to fix this in the platdata, I'd just rather have >>> function pointers instead of state variables in there. >> >> Well, we could pass a pointer to pm_runtime_enable() function in the >> platdata. > > What do other drivers do? Grepping around, I see calls to pm_runtime_enable > made in various drivers and, given that you pass the device in there, what's > the problem with us just calling that unconditionally from perf? I know you > said that will work for OMAP, but I'm trying to understand the effect that > has on PM-aware platforms that don't require this for the PMU (since this > seems to be per-device). I had done this initially when testing on OMAP platforms that do and don't require runtime PM for PMU. I don't see any side affect of this, however, may be Kevin could comment on if that is ok. It would be the best approach. 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
