Re: [PATCH V4 16/16] ARM64: tegra: select PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS

From	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH V4 16/16] ARM64: tegra: select PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS
Date	2016-01-27 10:50 +0100
Message-ID	<qVuTD-1ws-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <qQAwG-50b-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQLV8-4BL-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQMoa-51q-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQTJ0-1H2-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qVfhW-7dM-35@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

[...]

>
> Any more thoughts on this?
>
> I have been discussing with Thierry and we think that selecting PM for
> tegra still makes the most sense. The question is, is this ok for
> multi-configs?

Yes, this is too me the best option.

Additionally, for those tegra SoCs/platforms that needs
PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS, it can safely select that as well.

>
> The only other suggestion/thought I have is to allow
> PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF to be selected independently of PM so that we can
> have minimal support for PM domains that allows you to register PM
> domains with the kernel and their current state, but does not allow you
> to control them, etc. This way tegra could always select
> PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF regardless of PM, and we would be able to
> determine if we can probe a device safely.
>
> I am not sure that Rafael is too keen on this approach but that is the
> only alternative I have come up with.

I think Rafael already made his point around this approach, which is a
clear no. And I fully agree with it.

Kind regards
Uffe

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [PATCH V4 16/16] ARM64: tegra: select PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2016-01-26 18:10 +0100
  Re: [PATCH V4 16/16] ARM64: tegra: select PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> - 2016-01-27 10:50 +0100

csiph-web