Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 5/5] iommu/arm-smmu: Add support for qcom,smmu-v2
 variant
To:     Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>
References: <20180313085534.11650-1-vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>
 <20180313085534.11650-6-vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>
 <61d30fff-1bf8-d2c1-bbe9-f93de836ae77@huawei.com>
 <7d5af071-ef98-8461-3ce9-e84fc0b3956a@codeaurora.org>
 <d97872fe-5e8e-cc27-e385-64cea8ea2458@huawei.com>
 <CAAFQd5Cj3qaqt8ACabZwN4ZKaNbF9N9suGVaOKD8-kNxgfeeVA@mail.gmail.com>
CC:     Vivek Gautam <vivek.gautam@codeaurora.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        "Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "list@263.net:IOMMU DRIVERS" <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        <iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org>, <gaojianbo@hisilicon.com>
From:   Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <65a57964-805b-3a38-71a2-0c383af30539@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Apr 2018 09:22:05 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAFQd5Cj3qaqt8ACabZwN4ZKaNbF9N9suGVaOKD8-kNxgfeeVA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Tomasz,

On 2018/4/10 21:14, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi Yisheng,
> 
> Sorry, I think we missed your question here.
> 
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 3:12 PM Yisheng Xie <xieyisheng1@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Vivek,
> 
>> On 2018/3/28 12:37, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>> Hi Yisheng
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/28/2018 6:54 AM, Yisheng Xie wrote:
>>>> Hi Vivek,
>>>>
>>>> On 2018/3/13 16:55, Vivek Gautam wrote:
>>>>> +- power-domains:  Specifiers for power domains required to be
> powered on for
>>>>> +                  the SMMU to operate, as per generic power domain
> bindings.
>>>>> +
>>>> In this patchset, power-domains is not used right? And you just do the
> clock gating,
>>>> but not power gating, right?
>>>
>>> We are handling the power-domains too. Please see the example in this
> binding doc.
> 
>> I see, but I do not find the point in code of these patchset, do you mean
> PMIC(e.g mmcc)
>> will gate the power domain of SMMU(e.g. MDSS_GDSC of mmcc) when PMIC
> suspend?
> 
> 
> If respective SoC power domains is registered as a standard genpd PM
> domain, then the runtime PM subsystem will take care of power domain
> control at runtime suspend and resume.
> 

Get it, thanks for your explain, I should have learned about this.

Thanks
Yisheng

> Best regards,
> Tomasz
> 
> .
>