[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1421918770.31903.111.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:26:10 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: "Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"Kumar P, Mahesh" <mahesh.kumar.p@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] PMC driver: Add Cherrytrail PMC interface
On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 12:02 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote:
> On 2015/1/21 5:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The patch adds CHT PMC interface. This exposes all the South IP device power
> > states and S0ix states for CHT. The bit map of FUNC_DIS and D3_STS_0 registers
> > for SoCs are consistent. The D3_STS_1 and FUNC_DIS_2 registers, however, are
> > not aligned. This is fixed by splitting a common mapping on per register basis.
> >
> Should we define the bit map table completely separate for different
> platforms? My concern is, when D3_STS_0 and FUNC_DIS becomes not
> consistent in a new SoC, the implementation in this patch has to be
> rewritten completely.
>
> Defining entire bit map table for different platform introduces
> reduplicated bit definitions, but when we add a new platform in future,
> we don't need to consider the existing platforms definition, and no need
> to change code structure any longer.
>
> Thoughts?
>
But this what I did by introducing pmc_reg_map structure per SoC.
You may or may not use previous definitions.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Intel Finland Oy
--
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