Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] PM / Domains: Add power on/off notifiers for genpd

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 1:57 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Rafael,
>
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 at 13:06, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> >         - Improved error handling in patch3.
> >
> > A device may have specific HW constraints that must be obeyed to, before its
> > corresponding PM domain (genpd) can be powered off - and vice verse at power
> > on. These constraints can't be managed through the regular runtime PM based
> > deployment for a device, because the access pattern for it, isn't always
> > request based. In other words, using the runtime PM callbacks to deal with the
> > constraints doesn't work for these cases.
> >
> > For these reasons, this series introduces a power on/off notification mechanism
> > to genpd. To add/remove a notifier for a device, the device must already have
> > been attached to the genpd, which also means that it needs to be a part of the
> > PM domain topology.
> >
> > The intent is to allow these genpd power on/off notifiers to replace the need
> > for the existing CPU_CLUSTER_PM_ENTER|EXIT notifiers. For example, those would
> > otherwise be needed in psci_pd_power_off() in cpuidle-psci-domain.c, when
> > powering off the CPU cluster.
> >
> > Another series that enables drivers/soc/qcom/rpmh-rsc.c to make use of the new
> > genpd on/off notifiers, are soon to be posted. However, I would appreciate any
> > feedback on the approach taken, even before that series hits LKML.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Ulf Hansson
> >
> >
> > Ulf Hansson (3):
> >   PM / Domains: Rename power state enums for genpd
> >   PM / Domains: Allow to abort power off when no ->power_off() callback
> >   PM / Domains: Add support for PM domain on/off notifiers for genpd
> >
> >  drivers/base/power/domain.c | 187 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> >  include/linux/pm_domain.h   |  19 +++-
> >  2 files changed, 171 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
>
> I will need to iterate patch 3, potentially even a couple of more times.
>
> As I expect patch 1 and patch2 to not get changed, may I suggest that
> you pick up those so we can move focus to patch3?

OK, [1-2/3] applied as 5.10 material with minor subject edits, thanks!