[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 15:02:15 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...glemail.com>,
Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] ARM: dove: dt: revert PMU interrupt controller node
On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 08:00:36PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote:
> The corresponding driver didn't make it into v3.14, so we need to remove
> the node. Dove systems fail to boot with the node present and no
> driver.
>
> This node will be re-added when the driver makes it to mainline.
I'm going to stick my oar in on this and ask what is a very fundamental
question.
If we're adding the PMU interrupt controller as a separate "device"
aren't we describing our implementation rather than the hardware? It
isn't a separate device as far as the description of it in the reference
manuals.
Moreover, should the PMU interrupt controller be something which is
handled by a separate chunk of code to a driver for the PMU as a whole,
or are we storing up problems with resource clashes? I can quite see
a PMU driver coming along in the future offering a pair of generic
power domains for the GPU and VPU, and such a driver would need to map
all the PMU registers so it can access the power control, reset and
isolator registers.
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly
improving, and getting towards what was expected from it.
--
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