On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 04:18:57PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 16:06, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote:
[...] > > Indeed, I was ignoring knowing that it's harmless. But more people > > started to complain, and Rafael suggested this which I agree as we > > have several pseudo devices created in the kernel that we can bypass > > some of these pm handling knowing we won't need it. > > Okay, I see. > > Anyway, I will likely need to restore part of this change, via my > cluster idling series then. As from that point, the cpu device that > you call device_set_pm_not_required() for, starts to be used from both > PM core and runtime PM point of view. But I guess that's okay then. > Ah I see. I can drop for CPU devices then. Since I didn't see any use for them, I set the flag, but I can drop it now or you can do that as part of that series. There are quite a few devices(especially the ones registered under system subsys can set this but I would take it separate once we settle on this). Also Rafael may have seen use for few more devices when he suggested this. -- Regards, Sudeep
