Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Apr 2012 00:33:20 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH/RFC v2] ARM: amba: Remove AMBA level regulator support | From | Linus Walleij <> |
| |
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 09:22:50PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > >> Combined with the PL022 patch this causes a power regression since >> the PL022 is hereafter always on. > > I guess this code isn't in mainline, though? In that case you can > always add a revert of this commit to your out of tree patches if you > need to.
No, we can sure live with it... Out-of-mainline we do use power domains so that's what we should do instead. It currently looks like this: http://www.igloocommunity.org/gitweb/?p=kernel/igloo-kernel.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/mach-ux500/pm/runtime.c;hb=HEAD
It's a really nice piece of code but uses some out-of-tree features, the most obvious one is "atomic regulators" (which are exactly that).
>> But to the defence: power domain code was not in the kernel >> when the AMBA "vcore" regulator was introduced so how else >> could we do it... except for inventing power domains... > > Which might've happened sooner if we'd noticed :) There were some other > platforms doing similar things but they mostly used the clock API since > it was always entirely platform code until 3.4 so they're less intrusive > into the generic code.
Yeah ... but this sounds familiar, (searching searching) Yes! We did ask on the lists if regulators were proper for modeling power domains in 2008: http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=121580531500758&w=2
But I should've pushed for a proper answer ...
Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |