Hi Will,
On 06/06/2012 12:33 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 02:19:02PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Hi Will,
>
> Hi Jon,
>
>> On 06/04/2012 04:44 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Anyway, let me know what you think of this approach. An alternative is
>> to put the calls pm_runtime_get/pu
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 02:19:02PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> Hi Will,
Hi Jon,
> On 06/04/2012 04:44 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> Anyway, let me know what you think of this approach. An alternative is
> to put the calls pm_runtime_get/put outside of the reserve/release_pmu,
> which would be a simpler
Hi Will,
On 06/04/2012 04:44 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/pmu.c b/arch/arm/kernel/pmu.c
> index 2334bf8..8ffbb09 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/pmu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/pmu.c
> @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@
> #include
> #include
> #include
> +#include
> +#include
>
Hi Will,
On 06/02/2012 11:42 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Jon, Kevin,
>
> I've been between timezones, so sorry for the slow response.
No problem. I was expecting you guys in the UK to be out of office for the
next couple days :-)
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 03:42:56PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
Hi Jon, Kevin,
I've been between timezones, so sorry for the slow response.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 03:42:56PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
> On 05/31/2012 07:27 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> >> Hmmm ... however, now looking at the history behind the plat->irq_*
> >> hooks, I see that Ming specifically a
On 05/31/2012 07:27 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Jon Hunter writes:
>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> On 05/31/2012 05:36 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Jon Hunter writes:
>>>
Hi Kevin,
On 05/31/2012 03:42 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Jon Hunter writes:
>
>> Hi Kevin, Will,
>>
>>
Jon Hunter writes:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On 05/31/2012 05:36 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Jon Hunter writes:
>>
>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>
>>> On 05/31/2012 03:42 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Jon Hunter writes:
> Hi Kevin, Will,
>
> On 05/30/2012 08:29 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> Hi Kevin,
>
Hi Kevin,
On 05/31/2012 05:36 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Jon Hunter writes:
>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> On 05/31/2012 03:42 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Jon Hunter writes:
>>>
Hi Kevin, Will,
On 05/30/2012 08:29 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10
Jon Hunter writes:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On 05/31/2012 03:42 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Jon Hunter writes:
>>
>>> Hi Kevin, Will,
>>>
>>> On 05/30/2012 08:29 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
Hi Kevin,
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:50:01PM +0100, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Basically, I don't like the
Hi Kevin,
On 05/31/2012 03:42 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Jon Hunter writes:
>
>> Hi Kevin, Will,
>>
>> On 05/30/2012 08:29 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> Hi Kevin,
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:50:01PM +0100, Kevin Hilman wrote:
Basically, I don't like the result when we have to hack around
Jon Hunter writes:
> Hi Kevin, Will,
>
> On 05/30/2012 08:29 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:50:01PM +0100, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Basically, I don't like the result when we have to hack around missing
>>> runtime PM support for a driver, so IMO, the driver
On 05/31/2012 10:05 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> Hi Will,
>
> On 05/30/2012 08:29 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:50:01PM +0100, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Basically, I don't like the result when we have to hack around missing
>>> runtime PM support for a driver, so I
Hi Kevin, Will,
On 05/30/2012 08:29 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:50:01PM +0100, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Basically, I don't like the result when we have to hack around missing
>> runtime PM support for a driver, so IMO, the driver should be updated.
>>
>> IOW, i
Jon Hunter writes:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On 05/30/2012 04:50 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I'm guessing you probably know my thoughts since you've already thought
>> through how this should probably look.
>>
>> Basically, I don't like the result when we have to hack around missing
>> runtime
Hi Will,
On 05/30/2012 08:29 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:50:01PM +0100, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Basically, I don't like the result when we have to hack around missing
>> runtime PM support for a driver, so IMO, the driver should be updated.
>>
>> IOW, it looks
Hi Kevin,
On 05/30/2012 04:50 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
[...]
> I'm guessing you probably know my thoughts since you've already thought
> through how this should probably look.
>
> Basically, I don't like the result when we have to hack around missing
> runtime PM support for a driver, so IMO, th
Hi Kevin,
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:50:01PM +0100, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Basically, I don't like the result when we have to hack around missing
> runtime PM support for a driver, so IMO, the driver should be updated.
>
> IOW, it looks to me like the armpmu driver should grow runtime PM
> support
Jon Hunter writes:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On 05/29/2012 05:07 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> On 05/29/2012 04:17 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Jon Hunter writes:
>>>
From: Jon Hunter
This patch is based upon Ming Lei's patch to add runtime PM support for
OMAP4
[1]. I
Hi Kevin,
On 05/29/2012 05:07 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On 05/29/2012 04:17 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> Jon Hunter writes:
>>
>>> From: Jon Hunter
>>>
>>> This patch is based upon Ming Lei's patch to add runtime PM support for
>>> OMAP4
>>> [1]. In Ming's original patch the CTI inte
Hi Kevin,
On 05/29/2012 04:17 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Jon Hunter writes:
>
>> From: Jon Hunter
>>
>> This patch is based upon Ming Lei's patch to add runtime PM support for OMAP4
>> [1]. In Ming's original patch the CTI interrupts were being enabled during
>> runtime when the PMU was used but
Jon Hunter writes:
> From: Jon Hunter
>
> This patch is based upon Ming Lei's patch to add runtime PM support for OMAP4
> [1]. In Ming's original patch the CTI interrupts were being enabled during
> runtime when the PMU was used but they were only configured once during init.
> Therefore move th
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:17 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> Jon,
>
> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 15, 2012, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>> Hi Ming,
>>>
>>> On 05/14/2012 11:53 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> From: Jon
Jon,
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2012, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Hi Ming,
>>
>> On 05/14/2012 11:53 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
From: Jon Hunter
This patch is based upon Ming Lei's patch to
Hi Ming,
On 05/14/2012 11:53 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> From: Jon Hunter
>>
>> This patch is based upon Ming Lei's patch to add runtime PM support for OMAP4
>> [1]. In Ming's original patch the CTI interrupts were being enabled during
>> runtime w
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> From: Jon Hunter
>
> This patch is based upon Ming Lei's patch to add runtime PM support for OMAP4
> [1]. In Ming's original patch the CTI interrupts were being enabled during
> runtime when the PMU was used but they were only configured once d
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 3:05 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> From: Jon Hunter
>
> This patch is based upon Ming Lei's patch to add runtime PM support for OMAP4
> [1]. In Ming's original patch the CTI interrupts were being enabled during
> runtime when the PMU was used but they were only configured once d
From: Jon Hunter
This patch is based upon Ming Lei's patch to add runtime PM support for OMAP4
[1]. In Ming's original patch the CTI interrupts were being enabled during
runtime when the PMU was used but they were only configured once during init.
Therefore move the configuration of the CTI inter
27 matches
Mail list logo
