Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753395AbaJTJPi (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:15:38 -0400 Received: from service87.mimecast.com ([91.220.42.44]:51619 "EHLO service87.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752615AbaJTJPf convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:15:35 -0400 Message-ID: <5444D2E0.9070205@arm.com> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:16:16 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Neil Zhang , Will Deacon CC: Sudeep Holla , "'linux@arm.linux.org.uk'" , "'linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org'" , "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" , "'devicetree@vger.kernel.org'" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ARM: perf: save/restore pmu registers in pm notifier References: <20140423170821.GJ5649@arm.com> <175CCF5F49938B4D99B2E3EF7F558EBE5507A3C1F1@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <5360FB07.5030407@arm.com> <6106CAF835F351419ADA79E4836E6EC71B6A53C826@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <9034CBD80F070943B59700D7F8149ED9A0875730@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <20140513184503.GF16388@arm.com> <9034CBD80F070943B59700D7F8149ED9A087573F@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <537337F3.4080300@arm.com> <9034CBD80F070943B59700D7F8149ED9A0875776@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <9034CBD80F070943B59700D7F8149ED90182308172@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> <20140703175706.GI17372@arm.com> <9034CBD80F070943B59700D7F8149ED9024EB81CD8@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> In-Reply-To: <9034CBD80F070943B59700D7F8149ED9024EB81CD8@SC-VEXCH4.marvell.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Oct 2014 09:15:33.0838 (UTC) FILETIME=[6715C6E0:01CFEC46] X-MC-Unique: 114102010153327201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GBK; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Neil, On 20/10/14 09:46, Neil Zhang wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- From: Will Deacon >> [mailto:will.deacon@arm.com] Sent: 2014??7??4?? 1:57 To: Neil Zhang >> Cc: Sudeep Holla; 'linux@arm.linux.org.uk'; 'linux-arm- >> kernel@lists.infradead.org'; 'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'; >> 'devicetree@vger.kernel.org' Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] ARM: perf: >> save/restore pmu registers in pm notifier >> >> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:39:15AM +0100, Neil Zhang wrote: >>>>>> I will prepare another patch to add DT description under >>>>>> PMU since there is no generic power domain support for pm >>>>>> notifier if no other concerns. We can change the manner if >>>>>> there is generic power domain support for pm notifier >>>>>> later. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> No, please don't add any DT bindings for power domains >>>>> specific to PMU node. We can't change the DT bindings once >>>>> added. >>>>> >>>>> As I pointed out the DT bindings for generic power domains >>>>> are under discussion. See if you can reuse it, if not help in >>>>> extending it so that it can be used. >>>>> >>>> Sorry for reply later. As I said before the under discussed >>>> generic power domain is not suitable for CPU peripherals since >>>> they are all known belong to CPU or cluster power domain. If >>>> we want to follow the way they are discussion, we need to >>>> register core and cluster power provider, and need vfp/gic/pmu >>>> etc to require them. >>>> Is it really suitable? >>>> >>> Do you have any comments? If no, I would like to put it under PMU >>> node. >> >> Sudeep is a better person to comment than me, but I'd still rather >> this was handled more generically as opposed to a PMU-specific >> hack. I don't see a problem including GIC and VFP here, but only >> when we actually need to save/restore them (i.e. what the hardware >> guys went crazy with the power domains). >> > > Long time no follow up for this loop. Sorry that I will pick it > again. > Yes, the generic PD got added in v3.18-rc1, it's better to check if we can reuse it. I will also have a look at that and think about how we can use it. > Will, I prefer to check always-on field under PMU node to check > whether we need Save/restore them. > But how do you handle it for different idle states. e.g. if CPU is in retention, PMU's *might be* retained. Also I don't think PMUs will be placed in "always-on" power domain like timers. So using "always-on" sounds incorrect to me. Regards, Sudeep -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/