On Monday 11 of November 2013 23:11:41 Yadwinder Singh Brar wrote:
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> static int exynos_pd_power(struct generic_pm_domain *domain, bool power_on)
> >> {
> >> struct exynos_pm_domain *pd;
> >> @@ -83,7 +94,7 @@ static void exynos_add_device_to_domain(struct exynos_pm_domain *pd,
> >> dev_dbg(dev, "adding to power domain %s\n", pd->pd.name);
> >>
> >> while (1) {
> >> - ret = pm_genpd_add_device(&pd->pd, dev);
> >> + ret = __pm_genpd_add_device(&pd->pd, dev, &dev_latencies);
> >
> > The double underscore prefix scares me a bit. Is this function really
> > supposed to be used like this?
> >
>
> Moreover, it also seems little bit odd in the first place, to pass
> dev_latencies(QoS timing parameters) when we are not using/providing
> any governor for the genpd. QoS timing parameters have to be provided
> to be used by governor. In our case since we are not using/providing
> any governor yet, so it seems odd to provide QoS timing parameters. It
> seems, here core pd code is giving unnecessary warning in our case,
> since we are not providing governor(not interested in QoS). So IMO
> warning should be fixed instead of just suppressing it by giving some
> big values of timing parameters.
>
Yes, that would be probably much better option than providing some random
values that do not have any rationale behind them.
Rafael, could you comment on this?
Best regards,
Tomasz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
