linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Qualcomm Resource Power Manager driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <8CA95B37-E5EE-46BE-ABFD-64AA3BBF4E96@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Wed, 28 May 2014 12:06:32 -0500
From:	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>
To:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>
Cc:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Josh Cartwright <joshc@...eaurora.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Qualcomm Resource Power Manager driver


On May 28, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se> wrote:

> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> 
>> On May 27, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> This series adds a regulator driver for the Resource Power Manager found in
>>> Qualcomm 8660, 8960 and 8064 based devices.
>>> 
>>> The RPM driver exposes resources to its child devices, that can be accessed to
>>> implement drivers for the regulators, clocks and bus frequency control that's
>>> owned by the RPM in these devices.
>> 
>> Rather than adding yet another mfd driver, how about we put this in drivers/soc/qcom as a much better location for the low level rpm code.  Some code already merged in arm-soc for creation of drivers/soc/qcom/
> 
> Hi Kumar,
> 
> I do see rpm as somewhat equivalent to a pmic and that was why I
> followed suite and put it in mfd, but I can of course move it if you
> prefer.
> 
> 
> Lately I've been working on rpm, rpm-smd, smem, smd, smsm, smp2p
> patches for mainline.
> It could be argued that smd is a bus and should go in drivers/bus, but
> for the rest I fear that we just created drivers/soc/qcom as another
> dumping ground for things; a "Qualcomm specific drivers/mfd".
> 
> But maybe that is the purpose of it ;)

It is the purpose so that as we see common patterns between either drivers/soc/<VENDOR> we can refactor in the future.  However, we need to all a little time for those patterns to emerge rather than shoe horning in drivers into places that don’t make sense.

> 
> If I move the rpm driver, are there any conclusion to where I should
> move the dt binding documentation?

devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom
include/dt-bindings/soc

> 
> Regards,
> Bjorn

- k

-- 
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
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/