Rafael, On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Friday, August 12, 2011, Jean Pihet wrote: >> Hi Rafael, >> >> 2011/8/12 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx>: >> > On Thursday, August 11, 2011, jean.pihet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >> From: Jean Pihet <j-pihet@xxxxxx> >> >> >> >> This patch set is in an RFC state, for review and comments. >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> Questions: >> >> 1. the user space API is still under discussions on linux-omap and linux-pm MLs, >> >> cf. [1]. The idea is to add a user-space API for the devices constratins >> >> PM QoS, using a sysfs entry per device >> >> >> >> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=131232344503327&w=2 >> >> >> >> ToDo: >> >> 1. write Documentation for the new PM QoS class, once the RFC is agreed on >> >> 2. validate the constraints framework on OMAP4 HW (done on OMAP3) >> >> 3. Need testing on platforms other than OMAP >> >> 4. refine the power domains wake-up latency and the cpuidle figures >> >> 5. re-visit the OMAP power domains states initialization procedure. Currently >> >> the power states that have been changed from the constraints API which were >> >> applied before the initialization of the power domains are lost >> >> >> >> >> >> Based on the master branch of the linux-omap git tree (3.0.0-rc7). Compile >> >> tested using OMAP and x86 generic defconfigs. >> >> >> >> Lightly tested on OMAP3 Beagleboard (ES2.x). >> >> Need testing on platforms other than OMAP, because of the impact on the >> >> device insertion/removal in device_pm_add/remove >> > >> > The patchset looks really good to me, I don't think I have any major >> > complaints about this version. >> Ok good to hear it! I tried to address all comments and concerns in >> this release. >> >> > >> > The only thing I'd like to ask at the moment is whether or not the >> > compilation of drivers/base/power/qos.c should depend on >> > CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME. Do you think it will be used by system suspend code on any >> > platforms? >> I would say it should only depend on CONFIG_PM because the dev PM QoS >> API can be used from any kernel code, being runtime PM code or not. >> I leave the decision to the PM framework experts. >> >> > >> > Also, I'd like to take the final patchset for 3.2, >> Ok good! >> >> > but I don't feel >> > confident enough about the OMAP patches. >> The OMAP patches have been reviewed a few times already and the >> comments have been taken into account. Also i has been tested >> correctly on OMAP3. >> >> > If you want me to take them too, >> > please make sure they are ACKed by the OMAP maintainers. >> For sure I need the Acks. I guess I now need to annoy OMAP folks about it ;p >> In the case the Acks are not gathered on time the generic patches >> could be merged in, then the OMAP generic code. Do you think it is a >> viable option? > > Yes, it is. I can take patches [1-7/15] alone. > >> The only concern I have is about the on-going OMAP PM initialization >> clean-up task, cf. ToDo list: >> >> 5. re-visit the OMAP power domains states initialization >> procedure. Currently >> >> the power states that have been changed from the constraints >> API which were >> >> applied before the initialization of the power domains are lost >> >> On the other hand some testing is needed on platforms other than OMAP, >> because of the impact on the device insertion/removal in >> device_pm_add/remove functions. I tested the SD card insertion/removal >> on OMAP3. > > OK, so are you going to make any more changes to patches [1-7/15]? I am now reworking [06/15] after your comments. Is that OK timewise? > > Rafael > Thanks, Jean _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
