Re: [PATCH 3/4] pinctrl: Add support for additional dynamic states
From: Tony Lindgren
Date: Mon Jul 29 2013 - 05:31:31 EST
* Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> [130722 16:14]:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > To toggle dynamic states, let's add the optional active state in
> > addition to the static default state. Then if the optional active
> > state is defined, we can require that idle and sleep states cover
> > the same pingroups as the active state.
> > Then let's add pinctrl_check_dynamic() and pinctrl_select_dynamic()
> > to use instead of pinctrl_select() to avoid breaking existing users.
> > With pinctrl_check_dynamic() we can check that idle and sleep states
> > match the active state for pingroups during init, and don't need to
> > do it during runtime.
> I do not understand why this complexity need to be exposed outside
> of the subsystem.
Unfortunately it's mostly to deal with supporting the current behaviour
of pinctrl_select_state() which is not quite suitable for runtime PM.
> pinctrl_select_state() and the PM accessors are enough IMO. Why
> should say a driver care about whether it is dynamic or not?
I think we can make this all transparent to the consumer drivers
for runtime PM. Basically drivers/base/pinctrl.c needs these for the
checks because of the current pinctrl_select_state().
> Surely the checking and different paths for static/dynamic configurations
> can be an intrinsic detail of the pinctrl subsystem, by adding flags and
> members to private structs like struct pinctrl itself in worst case.
I'll take a look if we can bury more things inside the pinctrl
> So I'm not buying into this, it looks like it is making things complicated
> for consumers outside the subsystem for no reason.
I don't think the consumer drivers eventually need to do much
anything ideally. We're missing runtime PM related set_irq_wake()
but that's a minor detail as we can initially keep the runtime
PM related wake-up events always enabled.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/