Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states | Date | Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:39:42 +0100 |
| |
On Monday, February 06, 2017 11:05:05 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 16-01-17, 11:00, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 03-01-17, 16:36, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > An earlier series[1] tried to implement bindings for PM domain > > > performance states. Rob Herring suggested that we can actually write the > > > supporting code first instead of bindings, as that will make things > > > easier to understand for all. > > > > > > The bindings [1] aren't discarded yet and this series is based on a > > > version of those only. The bindings are only used by the last patch, > > > which should not be applied and is only sent for completeness. > > > > > > All other patches can be reviewed/applied whenever the maintainers feel > > > they look good. > > > > > > > > > A brief summary of the problem this series is trying to solve: > > > > > > Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of > > > their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive > > > integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state. > > > > > > We decided earlier that we should extend Power Domain framework to > > > support active state power management as well. The power-domains until > > > now were only concentrating on the idle state management of the device > > > and this needs to change in order to reuse the infrastructure of power > > > domains for active state management. > > > > > > The first 5 patches update the PM domain and QoS frameworks to support > > > that and the last one presents the front end interface to it. > > > > > > All the patches are tested by hacking the OPP core a bit for now. > > > > Ping ! > > Ping !!
I've been waiting for comments from Kevin and Ulf.
I guess it's better to resend at this point.
Thanks, Rafael
| |