lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: Add support for additional dynamic states
* Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> [130722 16:14]:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony@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 the active state.
>
> OK...
>
> > Then let's add pinctrl_check_dynamic() and pinctrl_select_dynamic()
> > to use instead of pinctrl_select() to avoid breaking existing users.
> >
> > With pinctrl_check_dynamic() we can check that idle and sleep states
> > match the active state for pingroups during init, and don't need to
> > do it during runtime.
>
> I do not understand why this complexity need to be exposed outside
> of the subsystem.

Unfortunately it's mostly to deal with supporting the current behaviour
of pinctrl_select_state() which is not quite suitable for runtime PM.

> pinctrl_select_state() and the PM accessors are enough IMO. Why
> should say a driver care about whether it is dynamic or not?

I think we can make this all transparent to the consumer drivers
for runtime PM. Basically drivers/base/pinctrl.c needs these for the
checks because of the current pinctrl_select_state().

> Surely the checking and different paths for static/dynamic configurations
> can be an intrinsic detail of the pinctrl subsystem, by adding flags and
> members to private structs like struct pinctrl itself in worst case.

I'll take a look if we can bury more things inside the pinctrl
subsystem.

> So I'm not buying into this, it looks like it is making things complicated
> for consumers outside the subsystem for no reason.

I don't think the consumer drivers eventually need to do much
anything ideally. We're missing runtime PM related set_irq_wake()
but that's a minor detail as we can initially keep the runtime
PM related wake-up events always enabled.

Regards,

Tony


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-29 11:41    [W:0.191 / U:8.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site