Tero Kristo [off-list ref] writes:

On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 12:14 +0200, Jean Pihet wrote:

quoted

Hi Tero,

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Tero Kristo [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2012-07-27 at 12:36 -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:

quoted

Tero Kristo [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

mpu / core powerdomain usecounts are now statically increased
by 1 during MPU activity. This allows the domains to reflect
actual usage, and will allow the usecount to reach 0 just before
all CPUs are ready to idle. Proper powerdomain usecounts are
propageted to voltagedomain level also, and will allow vc
callbacks to be triggered at right point of time.

Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <redacted>
Cc: Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>
Cc: Kevin Hilman <redacted>

IMO, the idea is fine, but I'm not crazy about the implementation in
powerdomain.c, which is meant for pwrdm generic code.   In particular,
I'm not crazy about the pwrdm lookups in powerdomain.c.

Since pm<soc>.c already has references to mpu_pwrdm and core_pwrdm, why
not just add the pwrdm_clkdm_enable/disable calls directly in pm<soc>.c

I think this was how the patch was in some earlier rev but I thought I'd
try to be more clever with this. :) I can revert the implementation back
to this.

Furthermore after the changes in pre/post transitions [1], some more
checks will be needed to identify the transitions on the mpu and core
power domains.

[1] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git;a=commitdiff;h=e055548953355b6e69c56f9e54388845b29b4e97

Regards,
Jean

Hi Kevin,

What is the latest status regarding this one, seeing the patch mentioned
got reverted due to problems? Should I do some changes for this or not?

No, using latest minline should be fine.

I can look at moving the code away from the generic powerdomain.c at
least, but is there anything else?

Nothing else I can think of (but my vacation has purged my brain of most
of the details here, so I may be forgetting something.)

Kevin