On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Felipe Balbi <ba...@ti.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 07:19:35PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> One thing caught my eye, you add: >> >> > +static void _aggressive_pm_runtime_get_sync(struct gpio_bank *bank) >> > +static void _aggressive_pm_runtime_put(struct gpio_bank *bank) >> (..) >> >> Then everywhere: >> >> > + _aggressive_pm_runtime_get_sync(bank); >> (...) >> > + _aggressive_pm_runtime_put(bank); >> >> Aggressive, argh, runtime PM is agressive by definition. If you >> want to switch this on and off use the compile option >> to enable/disable runtime PM altogether and do not wrap it >> like this. > > heh, OMAP doesn't work without pm_runtime. Hm then maybe that needs to be fixed ... or the runtime PM people need to be convinced to support different levels of aggressiveness in the core? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
