On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 05:42:21PM +0100, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@xxxxxx> writes: > > On 10/24/2012 12:23 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > >> 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. > > Unconditonally enabling runtime PM should be fine. It may add a slight > bit of overhead calling runtime PM functions that ultimately do nothing > (because there are no callbacks), but it will be harmless. > > Personally, I think that would be cleaner. The less pdata we need, the > better, IMO. Thanks Kevin, I'm fine with that. Jon: want me to write a patch or do you have something I can take into the ARM perf tree (if the latter, please base against perf/updates)? Cheers, Will -- 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
