On Saturday, April 16, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote: > On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 01:18 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Friday, April 15, 2011, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 14, 2011, Magnus Damm wrote: > > > > > > > > My only thought on this is if we really want to limit ourselves to > > > > > only control power domains using these callbacks. I can imagine that > > > > > some SoCs want to do other non-power domain specific operations with > > > > > these callbacks, and if so, perhaps using the term power domain as > > > > > name of the pointer in struct device would be somewhat odd. OTOH, I > > > > > really dislike naming discussions in general and I can't really think > > > > > of any good names. So it all looks more like a set of system specific > > > > > PM override hooks. > > > > > > > > > > Or is there something that is really power domain specific with these hooks? > > > > > > > > Not in principle, but I think there is. Namely, if there are two groups > > > > of devices belonging to the same bus type (e.g. platform) that each require > > > > different PM handling, it is legitimate to call them "power domains" (where > > > > "domain" means "a set of devices related to each other because of the way > > > > they need to be handled"), even if they don't share power resources. > > > > > > > > Of course, if they do share power resources, the term is just right. :-) > > > > > > They could be called "PM domains" instead of "power domains". That's > > > legitimate because they do get used by the PM core, even if they don't > > > literally involve groups of devices sharing the same power supply. > > > > Well, "power domain" can be regarded as a short form of "power management > > domain", which makes the point kind of moot. ;-) > > Except that on most embedded SoCs, the term power domain has specific > meaning in hardware, so using something other than that is preferred > IMO. > > What this really is is just per-device dev_pm_ops, which platform code > can use to group devices however it likes. > > So rather than call it a power domain, or a PM domain, we could also > just add a struct dev_pm_ops to struct device. Well, right. But in the future this thing will be necessary to provide additional information to _real_ power domain PM callbacks. So it will be more than just struct dev_pm_ops. Thanks, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
