| Message ID | 1397230004-22306-2-git-send-email-ulf.hansson@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | ab496b9d259e754f5d646219e4f032b274b9fffe |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 05:26:41PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > There are no active users of these callbacks, thus there are no benefit > of trying to invoke them. > > Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> > Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > --- > > I am seeking ack from the SOC maintainers since this needs to go with the other > patches in this patchset on the PM core. In order to reduce the possibility of conflicts I would prefer to take this patch through my tree. > --- > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c | 38 +++-------------------------------- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c > index 1fc05d9..f710235 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c > @@ -99,39 +99,7 @@ static int rmobile_pd_power_up(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd) > > static bool rmobile_pd_active_wakeup(struct device *dev) > { > - bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev); > - > - active_wakeup = dev_gpd_data(dev)->ops.active_wakeup; > - return active_wakeup ? active_wakeup(dev) : true; > -} > - > -static int rmobile_pd_stop_dev(struct device *dev) > -{ > - int (*stop)(struct device *dev); > - > - stop = dev_gpd_data(dev)->ops.stop; > - if (stop) { > - int ret = stop(dev); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > - } > - return pm_clk_suspend(dev); > -} > - > -static int rmobile_pd_start_dev(struct device *dev) > -{ > - int (*start)(struct device *dev); > - int ret; > - > - ret = pm_clk_resume(dev); > - if (ret) > - return ret; > - > - start = dev_gpd_data(dev)->ops.start; > - if (start) > - ret = start(dev); > - > - return ret; > + return true; > } > > static void rmobile_init_pm_domain(struct rmobile_pm_domain *rmobile_pd) > @@ -140,8 +108,8 @@ static void rmobile_init_pm_domain(struct rmobile_pm_domain *rmobile_pd) > struct dev_power_governor *gov = rmobile_pd->gov; > > pm_genpd_init(genpd, gov ? : &simple_qos_governor, false); > - genpd->dev_ops.stop = rmobile_pd_stop_dev; > - genpd->dev_ops.start = rmobile_pd_start_dev; > + genpd->dev_ops.stop = pm_clk_suspend; > + genpd->dev_ops.start = pm_clk_resume; > genpd->dev_ops.active_wakeup = rmobile_pd_active_wakeup; > genpd->dev_irq_safe = true; > genpd->power_off = rmobile_pd_power_down; > -- > 1.7.9.5 > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 14 April 2014 03:20, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 05:26:41PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> There are no active users of these callbacks, thus there are no benefit >> of trying to invoke them. >> >> Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> >> Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> >> --- >> >> I am seeking ack from the SOC maintainers since this needs to go with the other >> patches in this patchset on the PM core. > > In order to reduce the possibility of conflicts I would prefer > to take this patch through my tree. Okay, go ahead! Kind regards Ulf Hansson > >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c | 38 +++-------------------------------- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c >> index 1fc05d9..f710235 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c >> @@ -99,39 +99,7 @@ static int rmobile_pd_power_up(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd) >> >> static bool rmobile_pd_active_wakeup(struct device *dev) >> { >> - bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev); >> - >> - active_wakeup = dev_gpd_data(dev)->ops.active_wakeup; >> - return active_wakeup ? active_wakeup(dev) : true; >> -} >> - >> -static int rmobile_pd_stop_dev(struct device *dev) >> -{ >> - int (*stop)(struct device *dev); >> - >> - stop = dev_gpd_data(dev)->ops.stop; >> - if (stop) { >> - int ret = stop(dev); >> - if (ret) >> - return ret; >> - } >> - return pm_clk_suspend(dev); >> -} >> - >> -static int rmobile_pd_start_dev(struct device *dev) >> -{ >> - int (*start)(struct device *dev); >> - int ret; >> - >> - ret = pm_clk_resume(dev); >> - if (ret) >> - return ret; >> - >> - start = dev_gpd_data(dev)->ops.start; >> - if (start) >> - ret = start(dev); >> - >> - return ret; >> + return true; >> } >> >> static void rmobile_init_pm_domain(struct rmobile_pm_domain *rmobile_pd) >> @@ -140,8 +108,8 @@ static void rmobile_init_pm_domain(struct rmobile_pm_domain *rmobile_pd) >> struct dev_power_governor *gov = rmobile_pd->gov; >> >> pm_genpd_init(genpd, gov ? : &simple_qos_governor, false); >> - genpd->dev_ops.stop = rmobile_pd_stop_dev; >> - genpd->dev_ops.start = rmobile_pd_start_dev; >> + genpd->dev_ops.stop = pm_clk_suspend; >> + genpd->dev_ops.start = pm_clk_resume; >> genpd->dev_ops.active_wakeup = rmobile_pd_active_wakeup; >> genpd->dev_irq_safe = true; >> genpd->power_off = rmobile_pd_power_down; >> -- >> 1.7.9.5 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list >> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >>
On 14 April 2014 11:22, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote: > On 14 April 2014 03:20, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 05:26:41PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> There are no active users of these callbacks, thus there are no benefit >>> of trying to invoke them. >>> >>> Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> >>> Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> >>> --- >>> >>> I am seeking ack from the SOC maintainers since this needs to go with the other >>> patches in this patchset on the PM core. >> >> In order to reduce the possibility of conflicts I would prefer >> to take this patch through my tree. > > Okay, go ahead! > Hi Simon, Just wanted to know, if you decided to queue this patch in your tree. Or were there anything else you needed me to fix here? > Kind regards > Ulf Hansson > >> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c | 38 +++-------------------------------- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c >>> index 1fc05d9..f710235 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c >>> @@ -99,39 +99,7 @@ static int rmobile_pd_power_up(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd) >>> >>> static bool rmobile_pd_active_wakeup(struct device *dev) >>> { >>> - bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev); >>> - >>> - active_wakeup = dev_gpd_data(dev)->ops.active_wakeup; >>> - return active_wakeup ? active_wakeup(dev) : true; >>> -} >>> - >>> -static int rmobile_pd_stop_dev(struct device *dev) >>> -{ >>> - int (*stop)(struct device *dev); >>> - >>> - stop = dev_gpd_data(dev)->ops.stop; >>> - if (stop) { >>> - int ret = stop(dev); >>> - if (ret) >>> - return ret; >>> - } >>> - return pm_clk_suspend(dev); >>> -} >>> - >>> -static int rmobile_pd_start_dev(struct device *dev) >>> -{ >>> - int (*start)(struct device *dev); >>> - int ret; >>> - >>> - ret = pm_clk_resume(dev); >>> - if (ret) >>> - return ret; >>> - >>> - start = dev_gpd_data(dev)->ops.start; >>> - if (start) >>> - ret = start(dev); >>> - >>> - return ret; >>> + return true; >>> } >>> >>> static void rmobile_init_pm_domain(struct rmobile_pm_domain *rmobile_pd) >>> @@ -140,8 +108,8 @@ static void rmobile_init_pm_domain(struct rmobile_pm_domain *rmobile_pd) >>> struct dev_power_governor *gov = rmobile_pd->gov; >>> >>> pm_genpd_init(genpd, gov ? : &simple_qos_governor, false); >>> - genpd->dev_ops.stop = rmobile_pd_stop_dev; >>> - genpd->dev_ops.start = rmobile_pd_start_dev; >>> + genpd->dev_ops.stop = pm_clk_suspend; >>> + genpd->dev_ops.start = pm_clk_resume; >>> genpd->dev_ops.active_wakeup = rmobile_pd_active_wakeup; >>> genpd->dev_irq_safe = true; >>> genpd->power_off = rmobile_pd_power_down; >>> -- >>> 1.7.9.5 >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list >>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org >>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >>> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 01:25:14PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 14 April 2014 11:22, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote: > > On 14 April 2014 03:20, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 05:26:41PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >>> There are no active users of these callbacks, thus there are no benefit > >>> of trying to invoke them. > >>> > >>> Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> > >>> Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> I am seeking ack from the SOC maintainers since this needs to go with the other > >>> patches in this patchset on the PM core. > >> > >> In order to reduce the possibility of conflicts I would prefer > >> to take this patch through my tree. > > > > Okay, go ahead! > > > > Hi Simon, > > Just wanted to know, if you decided to queue this patch in your tree. > Or were there anything else you needed me to fix here? Sorry for dropping the ball. I will queue-up this patch. > > > Kind regards > > Ulf Hansson > > > >> > >>> --- > >>> arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c | 38 +++-------------------------------- > >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c > >>> index 1fc05d9..f710235 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c > >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c > >>> @@ -99,39 +99,7 @@ static int rmobile_pd_power_up(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd) > >>> > >>> static bool rmobile_pd_active_wakeup(struct device *dev) > >>> { > >>> - bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev); > >>> - > >>> - active_wakeup = dev_gpd_data(dev)->ops.active_wakeup; > >>> - return active_wakeup ? active_wakeup(dev) : true; > >>> -} > >>> - > >>> -static int rmobile_pd_stop_dev(struct device *dev) > >>> -{ > >>> - int (*stop)(struct device *dev); > >>> - > >>> - stop = dev_gpd_data(dev)->ops.stop; > >>> - if (stop) { > >>> - int ret = stop(dev); > >>> - if (ret) > >>> - return ret; > >>> - } > >>> - return pm_clk_suspend(dev); > >>> -} > >>> - > >>> -static int rmobile_pd_start_dev(struct device *dev) > >>> -{ > >>> - int (*start)(struct device *dev); > >>> - int ret; > >>> - > >>> - ret = pm_clk_resume(dev); > >>> - if (ret) > >>> - return ret; > >>> - > >>> - start = dev_gpd_data(dev)->ops.start; > >>> - if (start) > >>> - ret = start(dev); > >>> - > >>> - return ret; > >>> + return true; > >>> } > >>> > >>> static void rmobile_init_pm_domain(struct rmobile_pm_domain *rmobile_pd) > >>> @@ -140,8 +108,8 @@ static void rmobile_init_pm_domain(struct rmobile_pm_domain *rmobile_pd) > >>> struct dev_power_governor *gov = rmobile_pd->gov; > >>> > >>> pm_genpd_init(genpd, gov ? : &simple_qos_governor, false); > >>> - genpd->dev_ops.stop = rmobile_pd_stop_dev; > >>> - genpd->dev_ops.start = rmobile_pd_start_dev; > >>> + genpd->dev_ops.stop = pm_clk_suspend; > >>> + genpd->dev_ops.start = pm_clk_resume; > >>> genpd->dev_ops.active_wakeup = rmobile_pd_active_wakeup; > >>> genpd->dev_irq_safe = true; > >>> genpd->power_off = rmobile_pd_power_down; > >>> -- > >>> 1.7.9.5 > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> linux-arm-kernel mailing list > >>> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > >>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > >>> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Friday, April 25, 2014 10:06:51 AM Simon Horman wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 01:25:14PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On 14 April 2014 11:22, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On 14 April 2014 03:20, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: > > >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 05:26:41PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > >>> There are no active users of these callbacks, thus there are no benefit > > >>> of trying to invoke them. > > >>> > > >>> Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> > > >>> Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > > >>> --- > > >>> > > >>> I am seeking ack from the SOC maintainers since this needs to go with the other > > >>> patches in this patchset on the PM core. > > >> > > >> In order to reduce the possibility of conflicts I would prefer > > >> to take this patch through my tree. > > > > > > Okay, go ahead! > > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > Just wanted to know, if you decided to queue this patch in your tree. > > Or were there anything else you needed me to fix here? > > Sorry for dropping the ball. I will queue-up this patch. OK Ulf, since the rest of the series depends on this one (or at least that's how it looks to me), would you mind resending it when this one gets into the Linus' tree?
On 30 April 2014 00:45, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > On Friday, April 25, 2014 10:06:51 AM Simon Horman wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 01:25:14PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> > On 14 April 2014 11:22, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote: >> > > On 14 April 2014 03:20, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: >> > >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 05:26:41PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> > >>> There are no active users of these callbacks, thus there are no benefit >> > >>> of trying to invoke them. >> > >>> >> > >>> Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> >> > >>> Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> >> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> >> > >>> --- >> > >>> >> > >>> I am seeking ack from the SOC maintainers since this needs to go with the other >> > >>> patches in this patchset on the PM core. >> > >> >> > >> In order to reduce the possibility of conflicts I would prefer >> > >> to take this patch through my tree. >> > > >> > > Okay, go ahead! >> > > >> > >> > Hi Simon, >> > >> > Just wanted to know, if you decided to queue this patch in your tree. >> > Or were there anything else you needed me to fix here? >> >> Sorry for dropping the ball. I will queue-up this patch. > > OK > > Ulf, since the rest of the series depends on this one (or at least that's > how it looks to me), would you mind resending it when this one gets into the > Linus' tree? Well, I would prefer if we could go ahead with the rest of the patches somehow for 3.16, but I guess it will be hard if Simon picks up this patch!? Simon, I guess the reason for your concern were about conflicts, but the file this patch touch has actually not been modified since Sep 2012. So, maybe we could go through Rafaels tree anyway? I have a bunch of other patches for genpd which I plan to send once the first part of clean up patches were merged. Those are likely material for 3.17 though. Kind regards Ulf Hansson > > -- > I speak only for myself. > Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:53:58AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 30 April 2014 00:45, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > > On Friday, April 25, 2014 10:06:51 AM Simon Horman wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 01:25:14PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> > On 14 April 2014 11:22, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > > On 14 April 2014 03:20, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 05:26:41PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> > >>> There are no active users of these callbacks, thus there are no benefit > >> > >>> of trying to invoke them. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> > >> > >>> Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> > >> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > >> > >>> --- > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I am seeking ack from the SOC maintainers since this needs to go with the other > >> > >>> patches in this patchset on the PM core. > >> > >> > >> > >> In order to reduce the possibility of conflicts I would prefer > >> > >> to take this patch through my tree. > >> > > > >> > > Okay, go ahead! > >> > > > >> > > >> > Hi Simon, > >> > > >> > Just wanted to know, if you decided to queue this patch in your tree. > >> > Or were there anything else you needed me to fix here? > >> > >> Sorry for dropping the ball. I will queue-up this patch. > > > > OK > > > > Ulf, since the rest of the series depends on this one (or at least that's > > how it looks to me), would you mind resending it when this one gets into the > > Linus' tree? > > Well, I would prefer if we could go ahead with the rest of the patches > somehow for 3.16, but I guess it will be hard if Simon picks up this > patch!? > > Simon, > I guess the reason for your concern were about conflicts, but the file > this patch touch has actually not been modified since Sep 2012. So, > maybe we could go through Rafaels tree anyway? Yes, my primary concern was conflicts. But as you point out that seems unlikely. I have already picked up the patch but the pull request I sent to the ARM SoC maintainers has not been pulled. And regardless it won't appear in Linus's tree via that route until v3.16-rc1. Perhaps a good way forwards would be for Rafael to also apply the patch with my Ack. I could also revert the version applied to my tree if that is of any help. Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> > I have a bunch of other patches for genpd which I plan to send once > the first part of clean up patches were merged. Those are likely > material for 3.17 though. > > Kind regards > Ulf Hansson > > > > > -- > > I speak only for myself. > > Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 07:23:08 PM Simon Horman wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:53:58AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On 30 April 2014 00:45, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > > > On Friday, April 25, 2014 10:06:51 AM Simon Horman wrote: > > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 01:25:14PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > >> > On 14 April 2014 11:22, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote: > > >> > > On 14 April 2014 03:20, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: > > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 05:26:41PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > >> > >>> There are no active users of these callbacks, thus there are no benefit > > >> > >>> of trying to invoke them. > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> > > >> > >>> Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> > > >> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > > >> > >>> --- > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> I am seeking ack from the SOC maintainers since this needs to go with the other > > >> > >>> patches in this patchset on the PM core. > > >> > >> > > >> > >> In order to reduce the possibility of conflicts I would prefer > > >> > >> to take this patch through my tree. > > >> > > > > >> > > Okay, go ahead! > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > Hi Simon, > > >> > > > >> > Just wanted to know, if you decided to queue this patch in your tree. > > >> > Or were there anything else you needed me to fix here? > > >> > > >> Sorry for dropping the ball. I will queue-up this patch. > > > > > > OK > > > > > > Ulf, since the rest of the series depends on this one (or at least that's > > > how it looks to me), would you mind resending it when this one gets into the > > > Linus' tree? > > > > Well, I would prefer if we could go ahead with the rest of the patches > > somehow for 3.16, but I guess it will be hard if Simon picks up this > > patch!? > > > > Simon, > > I guess the reason for your concern were about conflicts, but the file > > this patch touch has actually not been modified since Sep 2012. So, > > maybe we could go through Rafaels tree anyway? > > Yes, my primary concern was conflicts. > But as you point out that seems unlikely. > > I have already picked up the patch but the pull request I sent to > the ARM SoC maintainers has not been pulled. And regardless it > won't appear in Linus's tree via that route until v3.16-rc1. > > Perhaps a good way forwards would be for Rafael to also apply the patch > with my Ack. Not really. No duplicate patches with different changelogs coming from different trees. Please! > I could also revert the version applied to my tree > if that is of any help. > > Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> Ulf, can you please do as I said?
On 30 April 2014 22:21, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 07:23:08 PM Simon Horman wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:53:58AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> > On 30 April 2014 00:45, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: >> > > On Friday, April 25, 2014 10:06:51 AM Simon Horman wrote: >> > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 01:25:14PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> > >> > On 14 April 2014 11:22, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote: >> > >> > > On 14 April 2014 03:20, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: >> > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 05:26:41PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> > >> > >>> There are no active users of these callbacks, thus there are no benefit >> > >> > >>> of trying to invoke them. >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> >> > >> > >>> Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> >> > >> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> >> > >> > >>> --- >> > >> > >>> >> > >> > >>> I am seeking ack from the SOC maintainers since this needs to go with the other >> > >> > >>> patches in this patchset on the PM core. >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> In order to reduce the possibility of conflicts I would prefer >> > >> > >> to take this patch through my tree. >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Okay, go ahead! >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi Simon, >> > >> > >> > >> > Just wanted to know, if you decided to queue this patch in your tree. >> > >> > Or were there anything else you needed me to fix here? >> > >> >> > >> Sorry for dropping the ball. I will queue-up this patch. >> > > >> > > OK >> > > >> > > Ulf, since the rest of the series depends on this one (or at least that's >> > > how it looks to me), would you mind resending it when this one gets into the >> > > Linus' tree? >> > >> > Well, I would prefer if we could go ahead with the rest of the patches >> > somehow for 3.16, but I guess it will be hard if Simon picks up this >> > patch!? >> > >> > Simon, >> > I guess the reason for your concern were about conflicts, but the file >> > this patch touch has actually not been modified since Sep 2012. So, >> > maybe we could go through Rafaels tree anyway? >> >> Yes, my primary concern was conflicts. >> But as you point out that seems unlikely. >> >> I have already picked up the patch but the pull request I sent to >> the ARM SoC maintainers has not been pulled. And regardless it >> won't appear in Linus's tree via that route until v3.16-rc1. >> >> Perhaps a good way forwards would be for Rafael to also apply the patch >> with my Ack. > > Not really. No duplicate patches with different changelogs coming from > different trees. Please! > >> I could also revert the version applied to my tree >> if that is of any help. >> >> Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> > > Ulf, can you please do as I said? Okay! It seems like I have no choice. :-) Does that mean you were happy with the rest from this patchset? Additionally, I intend to post some more patches for the PM domain soon. Thus I will need to fold in these patches to any other upcoming patchset. Thought it could be good to know. Kind regards Ulf Hansson > > > -- > I speak only for myself. > Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pm" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Friday, May 02, 2014 11:13:23 AM Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 30 April 2014 22:21, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 30, 2014 07:23:08 PM Simon Horman wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:53:58AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> > On 30 April 2014 00:45, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote: > >> > > On Friday, April 25, 2014 10:06:51 AM Simon Horman wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 01:25:14PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> > >> > On 14 April 2014 11:22, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> > > On 14 April 2014 03:20, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 05:26:41PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> > >> > >>> There are no active users of these callbacks, thus there are no benefit > >> > >> > >>> of trying to invoke them. > >> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >>> Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> > >> > >> > >>> Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> > >> > >> > >>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> > >> > >> > >>> --- > >> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >>> I am seeking ack from the SOC maintainers since this needs to go with the other > >> > >> > >>> patches in this patchset on the PM core. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> In order to reduce the possibility of conflicts I would prefer > >> > >> > >> to take this patch through my tree. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Okay, go ahead! > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Hi Simon, > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Just wanted to know, if you decided to queue this patch in your tree. > >> > >> > Or were there anything else you needed me to fix here? > >> > >> > >> > >> Sorry for dropping the ball. I will queue-up this patch. > >> > > > >> > > OK > >> > > > >> > > Ulf, since the rest of the series depends on this one (or at least that's > >> > > how it looks to me), would you mind resending it when this one gets into the > >> > > Linus' tree? > >> > > >> > Well, I would prefer if we could go ahead with the rest of the patches > >> > somehow for 3.16, but I guess it will be hard if Simon picks up this > >> > patch!? > >> > > >> > Simon, > >> > I guess the reason for your concern were about conflicts, but the file > >> > this patch touch has actually not been modified since Sep 2012. So, > >> > maybe we could go through Rafaels tree anyway? > >> > >> Yes, my primary concern was conflicts. > >> But as you point out that seems unlikely. > >> > >> I have already picked up the patch but the pull request I sent to > >> the ARM SoC maintainers has not been pulled. And regardless it > >> won't appear in Linus's tree via that route until v3.16-rc1. > >> > >> Perhaps a good way forwards would be for Rafael to also apply the patch > >> with my Ack. > > > > Not really. No duplicate patches with different changelogs coming from > > different trees. Please! > > > >> I could also revert the version applied to my tree > >> if that is of any help. > >> > >> Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@verge.net.au> > > > > Ulf, can you please do as I said? > > Okay! It seems like I have no choice. :-) > > Does that mean you were happy with the rest from this patchset? Yes, those changes are fine by me. > Additionally, I intend to post some more patches for the PM domain > soon. Thus I will need to fold in these patches to any other upcoming > patchset. Thought it could be good to know. OK, thanks!
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c index 1fc05d9..f710235 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c @@ -99,39 +99,7 @@ static int rmobile_pd_power_up(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd) static bool rmobile_pd_active_wakeup(struct device *dev) { - bool (*active_wakeup)(struct device *dev); - - active_wakeup = dev_gpd_data(dev)->ops.active_wakeup; - return active_wakeup ? active_wakeup(dev) : true; -} - -static int rmobile_pd_stop_dev(struct device *dev) -{ - int (*stop)(struct device *dev); - - stop = dev_gpd_data(dev)->ops.stop; - if (stop) { - int ret = stop(dev); - if (ret) - return ret; - } - return pm_clk_suspend(dev); -} - -static int rmobile_pd_start_dev(struct device *dev) -{ - int (*start)(struct device *dev); - int ret; - - ret = pm_clk_resume(dev); - if (ret) - return ret; - - start = dev_gpd_data(dev)->ops.start; - if (start) - ret = start(dev); - - return ret; + return true; } static void rmobile_init_pm_domain(struct rmobile_pm_domain *rmobile_pd) @@ -140,8 +108,8 @@ static void rmobile_init_pm_domain(struct rmobile_pm_domain *rmobile_pd) struct dev_power_governor *gov = rmobile_pd->gov; pm_genpd_init(genpd, gov ? : &simple_qos_governor, false); - genpd->dev_ops.stop = rmobile_pd_stop_dev; - genpd->dev_ops.start = rmobile_pd_start_dev; + genpd->dev_ops.stop = pm_clk_suspend; + genpd->dev_ops.start = pm_clk_resume; genpd->dev_ops.active_wakeup = rmobile_pd_active_wakeup; genpd->dev_irq_safe = true; genpd->power_off = rmobile_pd_power_down;
There are no active users of these callbacks, thus there are no benefit of trying to invoke them. Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> --- I am seeking ack from the SOC maintainers since this needs to go with the other patches in this patchset on the PM core. --- arch/arm/mach-shmobile/pm-rmobile.c | 38 +++-------------------------------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)