>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/4/22/213 (I guess the details are in the >> archives) I'm happy to re-visit it. >> > > Interesting patch, it looks like having a "system wide bus" doesn't > easily apply to msm and tegra platforms. > An example of some things I would like to be able to control are i2c > and memory bus. > > I'm tempted to suggest adding two types memory and i2c but I'm not > sure how future proof this will be given the growing complexity in the > embedded hardware road-map. > What about the possibility of registering not one but several buses? > You could add a bus qos param, with a type enum, or bind to some > platform_driver or bus_driver > > Then there's the issue of having to deal with platform specific buses, > do you add this type to pm qos with only one user? Or have some > platform bus types defined somewhere. The generic code of min / max > for resource X can be useful so everyone doesn't spin their own > resource framework in their own architecture. > > -- Mike Mike, one idea I'm exploring is having platform-specific busses with QoS constraints specified via runtime_pm as part of the LDM. Adding dynamic class creation within pm_qos, or a type enum as you suggest, would work. However, I think this kind of behavior would fit nicely within runtime_pm. - Bryan _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
