RFC: representing sdio devices oob interrupt, clks, etc. in device tree

Ulf Hansson ulf.hansson at linaro.org
Tue Jun 3 06:28:09 PDT 2014


[snip]

>>
>> Why do we need to put the sdio functions devices in DT?
>
> To define sdio function specific non probable info, such as oob irqs,
> also see the "mmc: Add SDIO function devicetree subnode parsing" patch-set
> of which I send v3 this morning.

Yes, of course - makes sense.

[snip]

>>>> I see these important things that follow if we decide to use runtime
>>>> PM to trigger the power up/off sequence.
>>>> 1) In cases of !CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME, it means the "powerup driver" once
>>>> probed, will keep it's resources enabled forever.
>>>
>>> Ack.
>>
>> So, the consequence is that for CONFIG_PM_SLEEP systems not using
>> CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME - we don't have a good solution.
>>
>> Is that acceptable?
>
> IMHO yes, if people want maximum power savings they should use
> CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME. And since this is all for yet to be added
> systems / configs I would expect CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME to be supported
> there just fine.

That's a valid point, but on the other hand, "old" systems could
benefit from this "feature" as well, were runtime PM might not be that
interesting.

Kind regards
Uffe



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list