[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50B33043.2020700@ti.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2012 10:02:59 +0100
From: Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>
To: "Bedia, Vaibhav" <vaibhav.bedia@...com>
CC: "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>,
"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
Hi Vaibhav,
On 11/26/2012 06:19 AM, Bedia, Vaibhav wrote:
> 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?
The issue is that this approach is not doable anymore with DT, that's
why I had to provide a default set of functions.
Regards,
Benoit
--
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