On 10/25/2012 11:47 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > 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)? I can easily spin this. Will base on top of your branch. 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
