"Rafael J. Wysocki" <r...@rjwysocki.net> writes: > On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 05:13:27 PM Kevin Hilman wrote: >> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <r...@rjwysocki.net> >> wrote: >> > On Wednesday, May 13, 2015 03:59:55 PM Kevin Hilman wrote: >> >> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <r...@rjwysocki.net> writes: >> >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> >> > Second, quite honestly, I don't see a connection to genpd here. >> >> >> >> The connection with genpd is because the *reason* the timer was >> >> shutdown/stopped is because it shares power with the CPU, which is why >> >> the timer stops when the CPU hits ceratin low power states. IOW, it's >> >> in the same power domain as the CPU. >> > >> > Well, what if you don't have genpd on that system? Is the problem at hand >> > not >> > relevant then magically? >> >> Well, if you're not using genpd to model hardware power domain >> dependencies, then yes you'll definitely need a different solution. >> >> And, as we discussed on IRC. If you only care about timers, and genpd >> is not in use, then $SUBJECT series is a fine approach, and I have no >> objections. But for SoCs where there are several other things that >> share power with CPU, we need a more generic, genpd based solution, >> which it seems we're in agreement on. And since the two approaches >> are not mutually exclusive, then I have real objections to applying >> this series. > > I guess a "no" is missing in the last sentence. ;-)
Correct. I have *no* real objections to applying this series. Kevin _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
