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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1419235 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 5/7] ARM: OMAP: dmtimer: Do not call PM runtime functions when not needed.

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 5/7] ARM: OMAP: dmtimer: Do not call PM runtime functions  when not needed. Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> - 2016-06-10 12:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 5/7] ARM: OMAP: dmtimer: Do not call PM runtime functions  when not needed. Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com> - 2016-06-10 23:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 5/7] ARM: OMAP: dmtimer: Do not call PM runtime functions  when not needed. Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> - 2016-06-13 09:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 5/7] ARM: OMAP: dmtimer: Do not call PM runtime functions  when not needed. Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> - 2016-06-13 09:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH 5/7] ARM: OMAP: dmtimer: Do not call PM runtime functions  when not needed. Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com> - 2016-06-13 21:00 +0200
          Re: [PATCH 5/7] ARM: OMAP: dmtimer: Do not call PM runtime functions  when not needed. Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> - 2016-06-14 10:00 +0200

#1419235 — Re: [PATCH 5/7] ARM: OMAP: dmtimer: Do not call PM runtime functions when not needed.

* Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com> [160509 13:52]:
> Hi,
> 
> On  9.05.2016 22:36, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com> [160507 08:24]:
> > > once omap_dm_timer_start() is called, which calls omap_dm_timer_enable()
> > > and thus pm_runtime_get_sync(), it doesn't make sense to call PM runtime
> > > functions again before omap_dm_timer_stop is called(). Otherwise PM runtime
> > > functions called in omap_dm_timer_enable/disable lead to long and unneeded
> > > delays.
> > > 
> > > Fix that by implementing an "enabled" counter, so the PM runtime functions
> > > get called only when really needed.
> > > 
> > > Without that patch Nokia N900 IR TX driver (ir-rx51) does not function.
> > 
> 
> Well, I just tested again, with the $subject patch reverted and
> contradictory to my own words, it worked just fine. I believe the reason is
> that I did hrtimer "migration" after I did the $subject patch. I was
> thinking the reason for the slow transmission was PWM dmtimer, but now it
> turns out it has been the "pulse" dmtimer. So, I think the $subject patch
> should be dropped.
> 
> > We should use pm_runtime for the refcounting though and call PM runtime
> > unconditionally. Can you try to follow the standard PM runtime usage
> > like this:
> > 
> 
> It works without that, but on the other hand, I finally have some reference
> on how PM runtime API should be called :).

OK. And I just applied the related dts changes. Please repost the driver
changes and DT binding doc with Rob's ack to the driver maintainers to
apply.

Regards,

Tony

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1419740

On 10.06.2016 13:22, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>
> OK. And I just applied the related dts changes. Please repost the driver
> changes and DT binding doc with Rob's ack to the driver maintainers to
> apply.
>

Already did, see https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/16/429

Shall I do anything else?

Thanks,
Ivo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1420501

* Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com> [160610 14:23]:
> 
> On 10.06.2016 13:22, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > 
> > OK. And I just applied the related dts changes. Please repost the driver
> > changes and DT binding doc with Rob's ack to the driver maintainers to
> > apply.
> > 
> 
> Already did, see https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/16/429
> 
> Shall I do anything else?

Probably good idea to repost just the driver changes to the
subsystem maintainers. With v4.7 out any pre v4.7 patchsets
easily get forgotten.

Regards,

Tony

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1420532

* Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> [160613 00:10]:
> * Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com> [160610 14:23]:
> > 
> > On 10.06.2016 13:22, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > 
> > > OK. And I just applied the related dts changes. Please repost the driver
> > > changes and DT binding doc with Rob's ack to the driver maintainers to
> > > apply.
> > > 
> > 
> > Already did, see https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/16/429
> > 
> > Shall I do anything else?
> 
> Probably good idea to repost just the driver changes to the
> subsystem maintainers. With v4.7 out any pre v4.7 patchsets
> easily get forgotten.

Heh s/v4.7/v4.6/ :)

Tony

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1421165

Hi,

On 13.06.2016 10:10, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com> [160610 14:23]:
>>
>> On 10.06.2016 13:22, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>>
>>> OK. And I just applied the related dts changes. Please repost the driver
>>> changes and DT binding doc with Rob's ack to the driver maintainers to
>>> apply.
>>>
>>
>> Already did, see https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/16/429
>>
>> Shall I do anything else?
>
> Probably good idea to repost just the driver changes to the
> subsystem maintainers. With v4.7 out any pre v4.7 patchsets
> easily get forgotten.
>

Sorry for the maybe stupid question, but does this mean that I should 
send separate patches instead of series? Or the series without what 
you've already applied?

Thanks,
Ivo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1421640

* Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com> [160613 12:01]:
> Hi,
> 
> On 13.06.2016 10:10, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Ivaylo Dimitrov <ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com> [160610 14:23]:
> > > 
> > > On 10.06.2016 13:22, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > OK. And I just applied the related dts changes. Please repost the driver
> > > > changes and DT binding doc with Rob's ack to the driver maintainers to
> > > > apply.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Already did, see https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/5/16/429
> > > 
> > > Shall I do anything else?
> > 
> > Probably good idea to repost just the driver changes to the
> > subsystem maintainers. With v4.7 out any pre v4.7 patchsets
> > easily get forgotten.
> > 
> 
> Sorry for the maybe stupid question, but does this mean that I should send
> separate patches instead of series? Or the series without what you've
> already applied?

Always leave out the patches that have been already applied.
Otherwise people will get confused. Just mention it in the
cover letter saying "patch xyz has been already applied into
foo tree, these patches are safe to apply separately into bar
tree" or something similar :)

Tony

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web