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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1574366 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

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 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org> - 2017-02-06 06:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2017-02-06 12:50 +0100

#1574366 — Re: [PATCH 0/6] PM / Domains: Implement domain performance states

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 !!

-- 
viresh

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1574584

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web