[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <B5906170F1614E41A8A28DE3B8D121433EC4C0FA@DBDE01.ent.ti.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 05:19:23 +0000
From: "Bedia, Vaibhav" <vaibhav.bedia@...com>
To: "Philip, Avinash" <avinashphilip@...com>,
"thierry.reding@...onic-design.de" <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>,
"paul@...an.com" <paul@...an.com>,
"tony@...mide.com" <tony@...mide.com>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@...com>
CC: "Hiremath, Vaibhav" <hvaibhav@...com>,
"AnilKumar, Chimata" <anilkumar@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Nori, Sekhar" <nsekhar@...com>,
"Hebbar, Gururaja" <gururaja.hebbar@...com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 03/10] ARM: OMAP: AM33xx hwmod: Add parent-child
relationship for PWM subsystem
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 16:36:06, Philip, Avinash wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 10:33:44, Philip, Avinash wrote:
> > As part of PWM subsystem integration, PWM subsystem are sharing
> > resources like clock across submodules (ECAP, EQEP & EHRPWM).
> > To handle resource sharing & IP integration
> > 1. Rework on parent child relation between PWMSS and
> > ECAP, EQEP & EHRPWM child devices to support runtime PM.
> > 2. Add support for opt_clks in EHRPWM HWMOD entry to handle additional
> > clock gating from control module.
> > 3. Add HWMOD entries for EQEP PWM submodule.
> >
>
> Is there any review on this patch?
> This patch depends on ECAP & EHRPWM to work in am335x.
First of all, I think you should break up this patch as per the 3 points
that you mentioned above.
The usage of opt_clks for this does not look right to me. Based on your
description this clock is necessary and not optional on AM335x and on
Davinci platforms this clock does not exist.
I think the custom activate/deactivate functions in the OMAP runtime PM
implementation was a good fit for keeping this SoC integration detail out
of the driver code. However, the current DT flow in omap_device.c seems to
assign the default activate/deactivate ops. Is that approach deprecated?
Regards,
Vaibhav
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists