On Monday, September 24, 2012, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On 9/23/2012 8:33 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Sunday, September 23, 2012, Peter Stuge wrote: > >> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >>> Well, we actually need to handle power domains appropriately. > >> .. > >>> Some work in that direction has been done in the ARM space, where we have > >>> much more direct access to hardware, and I suppose it may be extended to > >>> things like "ganged sets of ports" (which actually are power domains). > >> > >> Of course. > >> > >> Is there already an API for power domains there? What does it look like? > > > > Yes, there is, as it turns out. :-) > > > > Please see drivers/base/power/domain.c and include/linux/pm_domain.h. > > > > Of course, this only covers a limited set of use cases at the moment, but I > > think it's better to extend the existing code to cover more of them than to > > add new code of similar functionality. > > yeah. > well... we also have the voltage rail framework, which came from ARM, but > matches the ACPI paradigm much more closely. Well, I'm not sure about that last thing. > Ideally we map ACPI to the VR framework, and then have a more generic mapping > from that to power domains. This way or another, we need to handle power domains more directly. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
