[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH/RFC v2] ARM: amba: Remove AMBA level regulator support
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 11:27 PM, Mark Brown
<> 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:;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

>> 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:

But I should've pushed for a proper answer ...

Linus Walleij
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-02 00:35    [W:0.072 / U:7.108 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site