Hi, On Friday, August 12, 2011, Jean Pihet wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > 2011/8/12 Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@sisk.pl>: > > On Thursday, August 11, 2011, jean.pi...@newoldbits.com wrote: > >> From: Jean Pihet <j-pi...@ti.com> > >> > >> This patch set is in an RFC state, for review and comments. > >> > ... > >> > >> > >> Questions: > >> 1. the user space API is still under discussions on linux-omap and > >> linux-pm MLs, > >> cf. [1]. The idea is to add a user-space API for the devices constratins > >> PM QoS, using a sysfs entry per device > >> > >> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=131232344503327&w=2 > >> > >> ToDo: > >> 1. write Documentation for the new PM QoS class, once the RFC is agreed on > >> 2. validate the constraints framework on OMAP4 HW (done on OMAP3) > >> 3. Need testing on platforms other than OMAP > >> 4. refine the power domains wake-up latency and the cpuidle figures > >> 5. re-visit the OMAP power domains states initialization procedure. > >> Currently > >> the power states that have been changed from the constraints API which > >> were > >> applied before the initialization of the power domains are lost > >> > >> > >> Based on the master branch of the linux-omap git tree (3.0.0-rc7). Compile > >> tested using OMAP and x86 generic defconfigs. > >> > >> Lightly tested on OMAP3 Beagleboard (ES2.x). > >> Need testing on platforms other than OMAP, because of the impact on the > >> device insertion/removal in device_pm_add/remove > > > > The patchset looks really good to me, I don't think I have any major > > complaints about this version. > Ok good to hear it! I tried to address all comments and concerns in > this release. > > > > > The only thing I'd like to ask at the moment is whether or not the > > compilation of drivers/base/power/qos.c should depend on > > CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME. Do you think it will be used by system suspend code on > > any > > platforms? > I would say it should only depend on CONFIG_PM because the dev PM QoS > API can be used from any kernel code, being runtime PM code or not. > I leave the decision to the PM framework experts. > > > > > Also, I'd like to take the final patchset for 3.2, > Ok good! > > > but I don't feel > > confident enough about the OMAP patches. > The OMAP patches have been reviewed a few times already and the > comments have been taken into account. Also i has been tested > correctly on OMAP3. > > > If you want me to take them too, > > please make sure they are ACKed by the OMAP maintainers. > For sure I need the Acks. I guess I now need to annoy OMAP folks about it ;p > In the case the Acks are not gathered on time the generic patches > could be merged in, then the OMAP generic code. Do you think it is a > viable option?
Yes, it is. I can take patches [1-7/15] alone. > The only concern I have is about the on-going OMAP PM initialization > clean-up task, cf. ToDo list: > >> 5. re-visit the OMAP power domains states initialization > procedure. Currently > >> the power states that have been changed from the constraints > API which were > >> applied before the initialization of the power domains are lost > > On the other hand some testing is needed on platforms other than OMAP, > because of the impact on the device insertion/removal in > device_pm_add/remove functions. I tested the SD card insertion/removal > on OMAP3. OK, so are you going to make any more changes to patches [1-7/15]? Rafael -- 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
