Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1620667

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of PM domains

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/04/17 11:02, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
> 
> 
> On 04/10/2017 01:54 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>> On 10/04/17 05:09, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>>> Hey Jon,
>>>
>>> On 03/28/2017 07:44 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>> The current generic PM domain framework (GenDP) only allows a single
>>>> PM domain to be associated with a given device. There are several
>>>> use-cases for various system-on-chip devices where it is necessary for
>>>> a PM domain consumer to control more than one PM domain where the PM
>>>> domains:
>>>> i).  Do not conform to a parent-child relationship so are not nested
>>>> ii). May not be powered on and off at the same time so need independent
>>>>      control.
>>>>
>>>> To support the above, add new APIs for GenPD to allow consumers to get,
>>>> power-on, power-off and put PM domains so that they can be explicitly
>>>> controlled by the consumer.
>>>
>>> thanks for working on this RFC.
>>>
>>> []..
>>>   
>>>> +/**
>>>> + * pm_genpd_get - Get a generic I/O PM domain by name
>>>> + * @name: Name of the PM domain.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * Look-ups a PM domain by name. If found, increment the device
>>>> + * count for PM domain to ensure that the PM domain cannot be
>>>> + * removed, increment the suspended count so that it can still
>>>> + * be turned off (when not in-use) and return a pointer to its
>>>> + * generic_pm_domain structure. If not found return ERR_PTR().
>>>> + */
>>>> +struct generic_pm_domain *pm_genpd_get(const char *name)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	struct generic_pm_domain *gpd, *genpd = ERR_PTR(-EEXIST);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (!name)
>>>> +		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>>> +
>>>> +	mutex_lock(&gpd_list_lock);
>>>> +	list_for_each_entry(gpd, &gpd_list, gpd_list_node) {
>>>> +		if (!strcmp(gpd->name, name)) {
> 
> Also looking up the powerdomain this way means the consumers need
> to know the _exact_ name with which the providers have registered
> the powerdomains?

Yes, this provides a means for someone not using DT to lookup a PM
domain. How else would you do it?

Patch 3/4 allows you to use DT instead, which I imagine anyone using DT
would use.

Jon

-- 
nvpublic

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

Thread

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] PM / Domains: Add support for explicit control of  PM domains Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2017-04-10 22:00 +0200

csiph-web