On 02/05/2016 04:37 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> So as long as an interrupt handler is installed, there is no sane way that we
>> can decide to power down the irq chip, unless that chip has the magic ability
>> to relay incoming interrupt
On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> So as long as an interrupt handler is installed, there is no sane way that we
> can decide to power down the irq chip, unless that chip has the magic ability
> to relay incoming interrupts while powered down :)
Actually isn't that exactly
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> Here's a small collection of drivers that I easily picked up as
> candidates for using these new APIs.
> In principle, they would invoke these new APIs from their runtime PM
> callbacks.
>
> drivers/spi/spi-atmel.c
> drivers/spi/spi-pl022.c
> drivers/i2c/
On 21 January 2016 at 20:51, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> >> > I don't think using __free_irq() is the correct place to decrease the
>> >> > runtime PM usage count. It will keep the irqchip runtime resumed even
>> >> > if there are no irqs enabled for it.
>>
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >> > I don't think using __free_irq() is the correct place to decrease the
> >> > runtime PM usage count. It will keep the irqchip runtime resumed even
> >> > if there are no irqs enabled for it.
> >> >
> >> > Instead I would rather allow the irqchip to be
[...]
>> > I don't think using __free_irq() is the correct place to decrease the
>> > runtime PM usage count. It will keep the irqchip runtime resumed even
>> > if there are no irqs enabled for it.
>> >
>> > Instead I would rather allow the irqchip to be runtime suspended, when
>> > there are no i
On 20/01/16 15:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> On 18/01/16 14:47, Ulf Hansson wrote:
+/* Inline functions for support of irq chips that require runtime pm */
+static inline int chip_pm_get(struct irq_desc *desc)
>>>
>>> Why does these new get/put fu
On Tue, 19 Jan 2016, Jon Hunter wrote:
> On 18/01/16 14:47, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >> +/* Inline functions for support of irq chips that require runtime pm */
> >> +static inline int chip_pm_get(struct irq_desc *desc)
> >
> > Why does these new get/put functions need to be inline functions and
> > t
On 17/12/15 13:19, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>
> (Adding Rafael and linux-pm to To: list)
>
>> Some IRQ chips may be located in a power domain outside of the CPU
>> subsystem and hence will require device specific runtime power management.
>> In
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
(Adding Rafael and linux-pm to To: list)
> Some IRQ chips may be located in a power domain outside of the CPU
> subsystem and hence will require device specific runtime power management.
> In order to support such IRQ chips, add a pointer for a
10 matches
Mail list logo
