Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 1 May 2014 00:06:07 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH/RFC 3/4] of/clk: Register clocks suitable for Runtime PM with the PM core | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> |
| |
Hi Laurent,
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:23 PM, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote: > On Thursday 24 April 2014 15:11:24 Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 24 April 2014 12:13, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> wrote: >> > When adding a device from DT, check if its clocks are suitable for Runtime >> > PM, and register them with the PM core. >> > If Runtime PM is disabled, just enable the clock. >> > >> > This allows the PM core to automatically manage gate clocks of devices for >> > Runtime PM. >> >> Normally I don't think it's a good idea to "automatically" manage >> clocks from PM core or any other place but from the driver (and >> possibly the subsystem). >> >> The reason is simply that we hide things that normally is supposed to >> be handled by the driver. Typically a cross SOC driver should work >> fine both with and without a pm_domain. It should also not rely on >> CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME. > > That's a very good point. Geert, what do you think should happen if > CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is not set ? I don't have a strong opinion (yet) on whether > we could require CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME, but it would indeed be nice to support > both cases. One option would be to keep the clocks enabled unconditionally in > that case, as not setting CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME means that the user doesn't care > (or cares less) about power consumption.
This is already handled by my patch. If CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is disabled, the clocks are enabled by calling clk_prepare_enabled().
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |