On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 6:30 AM, Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03-01-17, 16:36, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> Hi, >> >> An earlier series[1] tried to implement bindings for PM domain >> performance states. Rob Herring suggested that we can actually write the >> supporting code first instead of bindings, as that will make things >> easier to understand for all. >> >> The bindings [1] aren't discarded yet and this series is based on a >> version of those only. The bindings are only used by the last patch, >> which should not be applied and is only sent for completeness. >> >> All other patches can be reviewed/applied whenever the maintainers feel >> they look good. >> >> >> A brief summary of the problem this series is trying to solve: >> >> Some platforms have the capability to configure the performance state of >> their Power Domains. The performance levels are represented by positive >> integer values, a lower value represents lower performance state. >> >> We decided earlier that we should extend Power Domain framework to >> support active state power management as well. The power-domains until >> now were only concentrating on the idle state management of the device >> and this needs to change in order to reuse the infrastructure of power >> domains for active state management. >> >> The first 5 patches update the PM domain and QoS frameworks to support >> that and the last one presents the front end interface to it. >> >> All the patches are tested by hacking the OPP core a bit for now. > > Ping !
http://marc.info/?l=linux-pm&m=148410629024194&w=2 Pretty please! I will start processing things when I'm back (which probably means the end of the next week realistically). Thanks, Rafael
