Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752801AbaJVP27 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:28:59 -0400 Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.216.51]:62040 "EHLO mail-qa0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752197AbaJVP25 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Oct 2014 11:28:57 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1413809764-21995-1-git-send-email-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> <1413809764-21995-3-git-send-email-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> <5446A065.9050308@gmail.com> <544793B5.6080601@ti.com> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:28:36 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: keystone: pm: switch to use generic pm domains From: Ulf Hansson To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Grygorii Strashko , Santosh Shilimkar , ssantosh@kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Kevin Hilman , Geert Uytterhoeven , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Rob Herring , Grant Likely , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 22 October 2014 17:09, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Ulf, > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>>>> +void keystone_pm_domain_attach_dev(struct device *dev) >>>>> { >>>>> + struct clk *clk; >>>>> int ret; >>>>> + int i = 0; >>>>> >>>>> dev_dbg(dev, "%s\n", __func__); >>>>> >>>>> - ret = pm_generic_runtime_suspend(dev); >>>>> - if (ret) >>>>> - return ret; >>>>> - >>>>> - ret = pm_clk_suspend(dev); >>>>> + ret = pm_clk_create(dev); >>>>> if (ret) { >>>>> - pm_generic_runtime_resume(dev); >>>>> - return ret; >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "pm_clk_create failed %d\n", ret); >>>>> + return; >>>>> + }; >>>>> + >>>>> + while ((clk = of_clk_get(dev->of_node, i++)) && !IS_ERR(clk)) { >>>>> + ret = pm_clk_add_clk(dev, clk); >>>>> + if (ret) { >>>>> + dev_err(dev, "pm_clk_add_clk failed %d\n", ret); >>>>> + goto clk_err; >>>>> + }; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> - return 0; >>>>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME)) { >>>> Can we not okkup two seperate callbacks instead of above check ? >>>> I don't like this CONFIG check here. Its slightly better version of >>>> ifdef in middle of the code. >>> >>> I've found more-less similar comment on patch >>> "Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] power-domain: add power domain drivers for Rockchip platform" >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/17/257 >>> >>> So, Would you like me to create patch which will enable clocks in pm_clk_add/_clk() >>> in case !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME) >> >> I am wondering whether we actually should/could do this, no matter of >> CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME. >> >> Typically, for configurations that uses CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME, the PM >> clocks through pm_clk_suspend(), will be gated once the device becomes >> runtime PM suspended. Right? > > Doing it unconditionally means we'll have lots of unneeded clocks running > for a short while. > > Are you trying to repeat power-up-all-PM-domains-during-boot for > clocks, too? ;-) This is related, but there are a difference. :-) As long as the pm_clk_add() is being invoked from the ->attach_dev() callback, we are in the probe path. Certainly we would like to have clocks enabled while probing, don't you think? If we wouldn't enable the clocks for CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME, when will those be enabled? Kind regards Uffe -- 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/