>> So, why we have to move to the 'aggressive clock gating framework'?
quoted text
>
>The aggressive clock gating makes more sense since the different
>drivers will know better how to handle the gating. ios with f=0 can
>be interpreted differently. Else every driver has to register
>runtime PM hooks for this, which is less elegant.

Thanks for the response. I just curious that is this the only reason to change the framework? To my understanding, seems it's not a very strong reason :-)

Take the example of sd/mmc card -
by using the aggressive clock gating framework, it means the host controller will gate (clock gating or power gating) itself if not receiving requests for 8 clocks even if the request queue of mmc block driver is not empty at that time. So the host controller has to be gated / ungated repeatedly until the current request queue of mmc block driver becomes empty. I don't think this is elegant since most of the gating / ungating operations are not necessary.

Instead, if we do it in the mmc block driver by just call the pm_runtime_put() once the current request queue is empty and call pm_runtime_get() once any new request comes, then the host controller can be gated/ungated appropriately.

Thanks.

Regards,
Yunpeng
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/