On Mon 2009-11-16 15:30:00, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 01:31:36PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 10:58:58AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 11:54:47AM +0900, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
>
> Any chance someone from the PM side could comment on the issue below?
>
> > > > +static int fsi_runtime_nop(struct device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + /* Runtime PM callback shared between ->runtime_suspend()
> > > > + * and ->runtime_resume(). Simply returns success.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * This driver re-initializes all registers after
> > > > + * pm_runtime_get_sync() anyway so there is no need
> > > > + * to save and restore registers here.
> > > > + */
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > This sets off alarm bells but it's perfectly reasonable, especially with
> > > platforms able to put things into a low power state with no explicit
> > > driver code now they can do power domain style things like SH. I've
> > > CCed in the PM folks since this seems like a perfectly reasonable use
> > > case which ought to be handled more nicely.
I believe that having few nop functions around the tree should not be
huge problem. If it is, you can introduce one shared top function into
the core...
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
