[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6261300.I132f1jLqB@wuerfel>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:15:33 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Ulrich Hecht <ulrich.hecht+renesas@...il.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Add "Simple" / Renesas Bus State Controller Driver
On Monday 24 November 2014 21:10:05 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> As this minimal BSC driver isn't hardware-specific at all, I'm wondering
> if there's a simpler way to do this?
> - Should the driver be renamed to "simple-bus", and match "simple-bus"?
> - Should this be moved to core code, without an explicit driver for
> "simple-bus"? I.e. should the driver core just enable runtime PM for
> all devices not bound to a driver, as they may represent buses with
> child devices that do rely on runtime PM?
>
> Thanks for your comments and suggestions!
My understanding of simple-bus is that it's something that does
not have any power-management capabilities, and I'd rather not
add clocks or interrupts to it.
What I think makes more sense is to have a bus driver for it
in drivers/bus, remove the "simple-bus" compatibility value
and have the driver take care of registering the power domain
and probing the child devices using of_platform_populate on
itself.
Arnd
--
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