Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 09/10/17 17:36, Todor Tomov wrote: > Hi, > > On 30.05.2017 06:41, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >> [].. >> > I was proposing to have such a lower-layer by splitting the existing > genpd framework so the drivers would have the option of calling the > lower-level power control functions to

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 09/10/17 17:36, Todor Tomov wrote: > Hi, > > On 30.05.2017 06:41, Rajendra Nayak wrote: >> [].. >> > I was proposing to have such a lower-layer by splitting the existing > genpd framework so the drivers would have the option of calling the > lower-level power control functions to

Re: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

Hi, On 30.05.2017 06:41, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > [].. > I was proposing to have such a lower-layer by splitting the existing genpd framework so the drivers would have the option of calling the lower-level power control functions to look-up pm-domains and control them directly

Re: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

Hi, On 30.05.2017 06:41, Rajendra Nayak wrote: > [].. > I was proposing to have such a lower-layer by splitting the existing genpd framework so the drivers would have the option of calling the lower-level power control functions to look-up pm-domains and control them directly

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

[].. >>> I was proposing to have such a lower-layer by splitting the existing >>> genpd framework so the drivers would have the option of calling the >>> lower-level power control functions to look-up pm-domains and control >>> them directly from their rpm callbacks (if they need to). Same as we

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

[].. >>> I was proposing to have such a lower-layer by splitting the existing >>> genpd framework so the drivers would have the option of calling the >>> lower-level power control functions to look-up pm-domains and control >>> them directly from their rpm callbacks (if they need to). Same as we

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 03/05/17 18:12, Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] > > What is missing, is how a call to pm_runtime_get_sync() by a driver, > can inform the ->start() callback about what exact power resource(s) > it shall turn on, because it may not always be all of them. Similar > problem

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 03/05/17 18:12, Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] > > What is missing, is how a call to pm_runtime_get_sync() by a driver, > can inform the ->start() callback about what exact power resource(s) > it shall turn on, because it may not always be all of them. Similar > problem

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

[...] >>> What is missing, is how a call to pm_runtime_get_sync() by a driver, can inform the ->start() callback about what exact power resource(s) it shall turn on, because it may not always be all of them. Similar problem exists for pm_runtime_put(). >>> >>> Yes that is

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

[...] >>> What is missing, is how a call to pm_runtime_get_sync() by a driver, can inform the ->start() callback about what exact power resource(s) it shall turn on, because it may not always be all of them. Similar problem exists for pm_runtime_put(). >>> >>> Yes that is

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 03/05/17 14:43, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 3 May 2017 at 10:32, Jon Hunter wrote: >> On 03/05/17 09:12, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> On 2 May 2017 at 23:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:10:29 AM Jon Hunter wrote: ... > So

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 03/05/17 14:43, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 3 May 2017 at 10:32, Jon Hunter wrote: >> On 03/05/17 09:12, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> On 2 May 2017 at 23:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:10:29 AM Jon Hunter wrote: ... > So unless I am misunderstanding you here, it

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 3 May 2017 at 10:32, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 03/05/17 09:12, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> Rafael, Jon, >> >> On 2 May 2017 at 23:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:10:29 AM Jon Hunter wrote: On 25/04/17 22:17, Rafael J.

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 3 May 2017 at 10:32, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 03/05/17 09:12, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> Rafael, Jon, >> >> On 2 May 2017 at 23:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:10:29 AM Jon Hunter wrote: On 25/04/17 22:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

Hi Ulf, On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 26 April 2017 at 11:17, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Ulf Hansson

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

Hi Ulf, On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 26 April 2017 at 11:17, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Ulf Hansson >>> wrote: On 26 April 2017 at 10:06, Geert Uytterhoeven

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 03/05/17 09:12, Ulf Hansson wrote: > Rafael, Jon, > > On 2 May 2017 at 23:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:10:29 AM Jon Hunter wrote: >>> >>> On 25/04/17 22:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 03/05/17 09:12, Ulf Hansson wrote: > Rafael, Jon, > > On 2 May 2017 at 23:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> On Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:10:29 AM Jon Hunter wrote: >>> >>> On 25/04/17 22:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 25

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

Rafael, Jon, On 2 May 2017 at 23:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:10:29 AM Jon Hunter wrote: >> >> On 25/04/17 22:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson >> > wrote: >> >> On 25 April

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 02/05/17 22:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:10:29 AM Jon Hunter wrote: >> >> On 25/04/17 22:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: On 25 April 2017 at 13:13, Jon Hunter

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

Rafael, Jon, On 2 May 2017 at 23:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:10:29 AM Jon Hunter wrote: >> >> On 25/04/17 22:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson >> > wrote: >> >> On 25 April 2017 at 13:13, Jon Hunter wrote: >> >>> >>

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 02/05/17 22:51, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:10:29 AM Jon Hunter wrote: >> >> On 25/04/17 22:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: On 25 April 2017 at 13:13, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 28/03/17 15:13, Jon

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

Hi Ulf, On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 26 April 2017 at 11:17, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> On 26 April 2017 at 10:06, Geert Uytterhoeven

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

Hi Ulf, On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 26 April 2017 at 11:17, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> On 26 April 2017 at 10:06, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:10:29 AM Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 25/04/17 22:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> On 25 April 2017 at 13:13, Jon Hunter wrote: > >>> > >>> On 28/03/17 15:13, Jon

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:10:29 AM Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 25/04/17 22:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> On 25 April 2017 at 13:13, Jon Hunter wrote: > >>> > >>> On 28/03/17 15:13, Jon Hunter wrote: > The current generic PM domain

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 25/04/17 22:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 25 April 2017 at 13:13, Jon Hunter wrote: >>> >>> On 28/03/17 15:13, Jon Hunter wrote: The current generic PM domain framework (GenDP) only

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 25/04/17 22:17, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 25 April 2017 at 13:13, Jon Hunter wrote: >>> >>> On 28/03/17 15:13, Jon Hunter wrote: The current generic PM domain framework (GenDP) only allows a single PM domain to be

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 26 April 2017 at 11:17, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Ulf, > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 26 April 2017 at 10:06, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 26 April 2017 at 11:17, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Ulf, > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 26 April 2017 at 10:06, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: However, we currently know about at least two different

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

Hi Ulf, On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 26 April 2017 at 10:06, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> However, we currently know about at least two

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

Hi Ulf, On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 26 April 2017 at 10:06, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> However, we currently know about at least two different SoCs that need >>> this. Perhaps we can extend the below list

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 26 April 2017 at 10:06, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Ulf, > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> However, we currently know about at least two different SoCs that need >> this. Perhaps we can extend the below list to justify

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 26 April 2017 at 10:06, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Ulf, > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> However, we currently know about at least two different SoCs that need >> this. Perhaps we can extend the below list to justify adding a new >> framework/APIs. Something

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

Hi Ulf, On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > However, we currently know about at least two different SoCs that need > this. Perhaps we can extend the below list to justify adding a new > framework/APIs. Something along the lines what you propose in

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

Hi Ulf, On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > However, we currently know about at least two different SoCs that need > this. Perhaps we can extend the below list to justify adding a new > framework/APIs. Something along the lines what you propose in $subject > patchset. > > 1)

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 25 April 2017 at 13:13, Jon Hunter wrote: >> >> On 28/03/17 15:13, Jon Hunter wrote: >>> The current generic PM domain framework (GenDP) only allows a single >>> PM domain to be associated with

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 25 April 2017 at 13:13, Jon Hunter wrote: >> >> On 28/03/17 15:13, Jon Hunter wrote: >>> The current generic PM domain framework (GenDP) only allows a single >>> PM domain to be associated with a given device. There are several >>>

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 25 April 2017 at 13:13, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 28/03/17 15:13, Jon Hunter wrote: >> The current generic PM domain framework (GenDP) only allows a single >> PM domain to be associated with a given device. There are several >> use-cases for various system-on-chip devices

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 25 April 2017 at 13:13, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 28/03/17 15:13, Jon Hunter wrote: >> The current generic PM domain framework (GenDP) only allows a single >> PM domain to be associated with a given device. There are several >> use-cases for various system-on-chip devices where it is necessary

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 28/03/17 15:13, Jon Hunter wrote: > The current generic PM domain framework (GenDP) only allows a single > PM domain to be associated with a given device. There are several > use-cases for various system-on-chip devices where it is necessary for > a PM domain consumer to control more than one

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

On 28/03/17 15:13, Jon Hunter wrote: > The current generic PM domain framework (GenDP) only allows a single > PM domain to be associated with a given device. There are several > use-cases for various system-on-chip devices where it is necessary for > a PM domain consumer to control more than one

[RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

The current generic PM domain framework (GenDP) only allows a single PM domain to be associated with a given device. There are several use-cases for various system-on-chip devices where it is necessary for a PM domain consumer to control more than one PM domain where the PM domains: i). Do not

[RFC PATCH 0/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

The current generic PM domain framework (GenDP) only allows a single PM domain to be associated with a given device. There are several use-cases for various system-on-chip devices where it is necessary for a PM domain consumer to control more than one PM domain where the PM domains: i). Do not