From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] PM: Make power domain callbacks take precedence over subsystem ones
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 01:12:08 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.39-rc3+; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>,
        Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>,
        Linux PM mailing list <linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, lethal@linux-sh.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1104151033020.2051-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org> <201104160118.24113.rjw@sisk.pl> <1302974133.2719.31.camel@vence>
In-Reply-To: <1302974133.2719.31.camel@vence>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201104170112.08292.rjw@sisk.pl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2678
Lines: 54

On Saturday, April 16, 2011, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 01:18 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, April 15, 2011, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Thursday, April 14, 2011, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > My only thought on this is if we really want to limit ourselves to
> > > > > only control power domains using these callbacks. I can imagine that
> > > > > some SoCs want to do other non-power domain specific operations with
> > > > > these callbacks, and if so, perhaps using the term power domain as
> > > > > name of the pointer in struct device would be somewhat odd. OTOH, I
> > > > > really dislike naming discussions in general and I can't really think
> > > > > of any good names. So it all looks more like a set of system specific
> > > > > PM override hooks.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Or is there something that is really power domain specific with these hooks?
> > > > 
> > > > Not in principle, but I think there is.  Namely, if there are two groups
> > > > of devices belonging to the same bus type (e.g. platform) that each require
> > > > different PM handling, it is legitimate to call them "power domains" (where
> > > > "domain" means "a set of devices related to each other because of the way
> > > > they need to be handled"), even if they don't share power resources.
> > > > 
> > > > Of course, if they do share power resources, the term is just right. :-)
> > > 
> > > They could be called "PM domains" instead of "power domains".  That's 
> > > legitimate because they do get used by the PM core, even if they don't 
> > > literally involve groups of devices sharing the same power supply.
> > 
> > Well, "power domain" can be regarded as a short form of "power management
> > domain", which makes the point kind of moot. ;-)
> 
> Except that on most embedded SoCs, the term power domain has specific
> meaning in hardware, so using something other than that is preferred
> IMO.
> 
> What this really is is just per-device dev_pm_ops, which platform code
> can use to group devices however it likes.
> 
> So rather than call it a power domain, or a PM domain, we could also
> just add a struct dev_pm_ops to struct device. 

Well, right.  But in the future this thing will be necessary to provide
additional information to _real_ power domain PM callbacks.  So it will
be more than just struct dev_pm_ops.

Thanks,
Rafael
--
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/