[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3] serial: 8250_of: Add basic PM runtime support

On 08/21/2017 07:20 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Thursday 17 August 2017 02:25 AM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
>> 66AK2G UART instances are not apart of the ALWAYS_ON power domain.
>> Therefore, pm_runtime calls must be made to properly insure the appropriate
>> power domains needed by UART are on. Keep legacy clk api calls since other
>> users of this driver may not support PM runtime.

There are a significant amount of users across a wide variety of
architectures and boards that I have no means to properly test to insure
I'm avoiding regressions. My current approach which I've seen other
drivers in the past use when in similar situations allows things to work
without regressions.
> Do we really have users like that? And even if there are, cant they use
> PM clock handling support available in drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c ?

I don't see any current defconfig that enables CONFIG_PM_CLK and only a
handful of instances where functions from clock_ops.c are actually used.
I don't quite understand what your suggestion is but in general I'm
concerned since any approach to move everyone to different apis is
rather risky especially for a critical driver.

If I'm missing your point please let me know.

> The clock enable support itself was added pretty "recently" - about 5
> years back with 0bbeb3c3e84b ("of serial port driver - add
> clk_get_rate() support"). So I doubt any really legacy platforms relied
> on clock support being there. It was added by Murali, I assume for
> Keystone devices. Keystone devices can work with runtime PM using the PM
> clock support pointed to above.

You might be right but I can't be confident that it is indeed the case.
But its possible that at some point people will start having problems if
they try to use this driver for other UART instances. The currently
could not be aware of an issue because of the bootloader powering things
for them or even that different UART instances could be apart of a non
always on power domain.

> Perhaps linux-arm-kernel list should be copied on this submission too,
> since most users of this driver are likely to be there on that list.

Looking at configs that enable CONFIG_SERIAL_OF_PLATFORM I see quite a
bit of users from different arch. ARM, OpenRISC, MicroBlaze, Nios2,
PowerPC, MIPS, Xtensa and Arc.

Looking at dts that enable some of the compatible it is still a
combination of quite a bit of architectures.

The current approach I've taken should be safe for all users of this
driver which. I have no issue going another approach as long as its
understood that I'm fairly limited in what I can test when you take into
account the large number of users of this driver.
>> Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <>
> Thanks,
> Sekhar

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-21 19:03    [W:0.057 / U:2.668 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site