On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> I was thinking more about people writing the device trees that define
> these states; they need to explicitly make the choice re: overlapping
> states or independent states. We should not plan to obsolete any current
> usage of
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
I was thinking more about people writing the device trees that define
these states; they need to explicitly make the choice re: overlapping
states or independent states. We should not plan to obsolete any current
On 07/29/2013 03:21 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Stephen Warren [130719 12:05]:
>> On 07/19/2013 01:39 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the only sane way to deal with this is to make the I2C controller
>>> to show up as two separate I2C controller instances. Then use runtime
>>> PM to
On 07/29/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Stephen Warren [130719 11:59]:
>> On 07/19/2013 01:29 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd vote for keeping the existing behaviour with pinctrl_select_state()
>>> when no active state is defined.
>>
>> Yes, I think that will work, since the active
* Linus Walleij [130722 16:14]:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>
> > To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
> > addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
> > state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states
* Stephen Warren [130719 12:05]:
> On 07/19/2013 01:39 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >
> > I think the only sane way to deal with this is to make the I2C controller
> > to show up as two separate I2C controller instances. Then use runtime
> > PM to save and restore the state for each instance, and
* Stephen Warren [130719 12:10]:
> On 07/19/2013 04:29 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> >
> > First of all, I'd like to mention that these patches do *not* connect
> > pinctrl to PM runtime, so until driver will call pinctrl_select_state()
> > or pinctrl_pm_select_*() there will be no pins state
* Stephen Warren [130719 11:59]:
> On 07/19/2013 01:29 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >
> > I'd vote for keeping the existing behaviour with pinctrl_select_state()
> > when no active state is defined.
>
> Yes, I think that will work, since the active state cannot exist before
> this new scheme is
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130719 11:59]:
On 07/19/2013 01:29 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
I'd vote for keeping the existing behaviour with pinctrl_select_state()
when no active state is defined.
Yes, I think that will work, since the active state cannot exist before
this new
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130719 12:10]:
On 07/19/2013 04:29 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
First of all, I'd like to mention that these patches do *not* connect
pinctrl to PM runtime, so until driver will call pinctrl_select_state()
or pinctrl_pm_select_*() there will be no
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130719 12:05]:
On 07/19/2013 01:39 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
I think the only sane way to deal with this is to make the I2C controller
to show up as two separate I2C controller instances. Then use runtime
PM to save and restore the state for each
* Linus Walleij linus.wall...@linaro.org [130722 16:14]:
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com wrote:
To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
state is defined, we can
On 07/29/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130719 11:59]:
On 07/19/2013 01:29 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
I'd vote for keeping the existing behaviour with pinctrl_select_state()
when no active state is defined.
Yes, I think that will work, since the
On 07/29/2013 03:21 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130719 12:05]:
On 07/19/2013 01:39 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
I think the only sane way to deal with this is to make the I2C controller
to show up as two separate I2C controller instances. Then use runtime
PM
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 04:29 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> First of all, I'd like to mention that these patches do *not* connect
>> pinctrl to PM runtime, so until driver will call pinctrl_select_state()
>> or pinctrl_pm_select_*() there will be
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
> addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
> state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states cover
> the same pingroups as the active
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com wrote:
To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states cover
the same pingroups as
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:03 PM, Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 07/19/2013 04:29 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
First of all, I'd like to mention that these patches do *not* connect
pinctrl to PM runtime, so until driver will call pinctrl_select_state()
or pinctrl_pm_select_*()
On 07/19/2013 01:29 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Stephen Warren [130718 12:27]:
>> On 07/18/2013 01:25 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> * Stephen Warren [130717 14:21]:
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
>
On 07/19/2013 01:39 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Stephen Warren [130718 12:33]:
>> On 07/18/2013 01:36 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> * Stephen Warren [130717 14:30]:
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> ...
Why shouldn't e.g. a pinctrl-based I2C mux also be able to do runtime
On 07/19/2013 04:29 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> Hi Tony, Stephen
>
> On 07/19/2013 10:39 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> * Stephen Warren [130718 12:33]:
>>> On 07/18/2013 01:36 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren [130717 14:30]:
> On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>>
Hi Tony, Stephen
On 07/19/2013 10:39 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren [130718 12:33]:
On 07/18/2013 01:36 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren [130717 14:30]:
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
...
Why shouldn't e.g. a pinctrl-based I2C mux also be able to do
* Stephen Warren [130718 12:33]:
> On 07/18/2013 01:36 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Stephen Warren [130717 14:30]:
> >> On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> ...
> >> Why shouldn't e.g. a pinctrl-based I2C mux also be able to do runtime
> >> PM? Does the mux setting select which
* Stephen Warren [130718 12:27]:
> On 07/18/2013 01:25 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Stephen Warren [130717 14:21]:
> >> On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >>> To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
> >>> addition to the static default state. Then if the
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130718 12:27]:
On 07/18/2013 01:25 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130717 14:21]:
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
addition to the static
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130718 12:33]:
On 07/18/2013 01:36 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130717 14:30]:
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
...
Why shouldn't e.g. a pinctrl-based I2C mux also be able to do runtime
PM? Does the
Hi Tony, Stephen
On 07/19/2013 10:39 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130718 12:33]:
On 07/18/2013 01:36 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130717 14:30]:
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
...
Why shouldn't e.g. a
On 07/19/2013 01:39 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130718 12:33]:
On 07/18/2013 01:36 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130717 14:30]:
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
...
Why shouldn't e.g. a pinctrl-based I2C mux
On 07/19/2013 01:29 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130718 12:27]:
On 07/18/2013 01:25 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130717 14:21]:
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional
On 07/19/2013 04:29 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
Hi Tony, Stephen
On 07/19/2013 10:39 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130718 12:33]:
On 07/18/2013 01:36 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130717 14:30]:
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM,
On 07/18/2013 01:36 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Stephen Warren [130717 14:30]:
>> On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
...
>> Why shouldn't e.g. a pinctrl-based I2C mux also be able to do runtime
>> PM? Does the mux setting select which states are used for runtime PM, or
>> does runtime
On 07/18/2013 01:25 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Stephen Warren [130717 14:21]:
>> On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
>>> addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
>>> state is defined, we can
To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states cover
the same pingroups as the active state.
Then let's add pinctrl_check_dynamic() and
* Tony Lindgren [130718 00:31]:
> * Stephen Warren [130717 14:21]:
> > On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > +int pinctrl_check_dynamic(struct device *dev, struct pinctrl_state *st1,
> > > + struct pinctrl_state *st2)
> > > +{
> > > + struct pinctrl_setting *s1,
* Stephen Warren [130717 14:30]:
> On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
> > addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
> > state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states cover
> > the
* Stephen Warren [130717 14:21]:
> On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
> > addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
> > state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states cover
> > the
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130717 14:21]:
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130717 14:30]:
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states
* Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com [130718 00:31]:
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130717 14:21]:
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
+int pinctrl_check_dynamic(struct device *dev, struct pinctrl_state *st1,
+ struct pinctrl_state *st2)
+{
+ struct
To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states cover
the same pingroups as the active state.
Then let's add pinctrl_check_dynamic() and
On 07/18/2013 01:25 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130717 14:21]:
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
state is defined,
On 07/18/2013 01:36 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org [130717 14:30]:
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
...
Why shouldn't e.g. a pinctrl-based I2C mux also be able to do runtime
PM? Does the mux setting select which states are used for runtime PM, or
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
> addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
> state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states cover
> the same pingroups as the active state.
>
>
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
> addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
> state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states cover
> the same pingroups as the active state.
>
>
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states cover
the same pingroups as the active state.
Then
On 07/16/2013 03:05 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states cover
the same pingroups as the active state.
Then
* Felipe Balbi [130716 02:42]:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 02:05:36AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > +int pinctrl_check_dynamic(struct device *dev, struct pinctrl_state *st1,
> > + struct pinctrl_state *st2)
> > +{
> > + struct pinctrl_setting *s1, *s2;
> > +
> > +
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 02:05:36AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> +int pinctrl_check_dynamic(struct device *dev, struct pinctrl_state *st1,
> + struct pinctrl_state *st2)
> +{
> + struct pinctrl_setting *s1, *s2;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(s1, >settings, node) {
To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states cover
the same pingroups as the active state.
Then let's add pinctrl_check_dynamic() and
To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states cover
the same pingroups as the active state.
Then let's add pinctrl_check_dynamic() and
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 02:05:36AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
+int pinctrl_check_dynamic(struct device *dev, struct pinctrl_state *st1,
+ struct pinctrl_state *st2)
+{
+ struct pinctrl_setting *s1, *s2;
+
+ list_for_each_entry(s1, st1-settings, node) {
+
* Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com [130716 02:42]:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 02:05:36AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
+int pinctrl_check_dynamic(struct device *dev, struct pinctrl_state *st1,
+ struct pinctrl_state *st2)
+{
+ struct pinctrl_setting *s1, *s2;
+
+
52 matches
Mail list logo