On 31-07-17, 09:44, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 29-07-17, 10:24, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > Let's invent a new genpd flag, GENPD_FLAG_PERF_STATE!
> >
> > The creator of the genpd then needs to set this before calling
> > pm_genpd_init(). Similar as we are dealing with GENPD_FLAG_PM_CLK.
> >
> > The requ
On 29-07-17, 10:24, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Let's invent a new genpd flag, GENPD_FLAG_PERF_STATE!
>
> The creator of the genpd then needs to set this before calling
> pm_genpd_init(). Similar as we are dealing with GENPD_FLAG_PM_CLK.
>
> The requirement for GENPD_FLAG_PERF_STATES, is to have the
> -
On 28 July 2017 at 13:00, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21-07-17, 10:35, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> >> > +/*
>> >> > + * Returns true if anyone in genpd's parent hierarchy has
>> >> > + * set_performance_state() set.
>> >> > + */
>> >> > +static bool genpd_has_set_performance_state(struct generic_pm_domain
On 21-07-17, 10:35, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >> > +/*
> >> > + * Returns true if anyone in genpd's parent hierarchy has
> >> > + * set_performance_state() set.
> >> > + */
> >> > +static bool genpd_has_set_performance_state(struct generic_pm_domain
> >> > *genpd)
> >> > +{
> >>
> >> So this function w
On 23-07-17, 09:20, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> I should have been more clear. Walking the master list, then checking
> each link without using locks - why is that safe?
>
> Then even if you think it's safe, then please explain in detail why its
> needed.
>
> Walking the slave list as being done for po
On 21 July 2017 at 11:05, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21-07-17, 10:35, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> This depends on how drivers are dealing with runtime PM in conjunction
>> with the new pm_genpd_update_performance_state().
>>
>> In case you don't want to manage some of this in genpd, then each
>> driver wi
On 21-07-17, 10:35, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> This depends on how drivers are dealing with runtime PM in conjunction
> with the new pm_genpd_update_performance_state().
>
> In case you don't want to manage some of this in genpd, then each
> driver will have to drop their constraints every time they are
[...]
>
>> What happens when a power domain gets powered off and then on. Is the
>> performance state restored? Please elaborate a bit on this.
>
> Can this happen while the genpd is still in use? If not then we
> wouldn't have a problem here as the users of it would have revoked
> their constrain
On 17-07-17, 14:38, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 21 June 2017 at 09:10, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
> > their Power Domains. The performance levels are identified by positive
> > integer values, a lower value represents lower performa
On 21 June 2017 at 09:10, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
> their Power Domains. The performance levels are identified by positive
> integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.
>
> This patch adds a new genpd API:
Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of
their Power Domains. The performance levels are identified by positive
integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state.
This patch adds a new genpd API: pm_genpd_update_performance_state().
The caller passes
11 matches
Mail list logo