[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7h383lzaqt.fsf@deeprootsystems.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:28:42 -0700
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>
To: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
Cc: Caesar Wang <wxt@...k-chips.com>, tomasz.figa@...il.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
galak@...eaurora.org, grant.likely@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
rdunlap@...radead.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
dianders@...omium.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
ulf.hansson@...aro.org, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
broonie@...nel.org, ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk,
linux@....linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 0/3] ARM: rk3288: Add PM Domain support
Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de> writes:
> Am Freitag, 24. April 2015, 16:07:45 schrieb Caesar Wang:
>> Add power domain drivers based on generic power domain for
>> Rockchip platform, and support RK3288.
>>
>> Verified on url =
>> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/kernel.
>>
>> At the moment,there are mass of products are using the driver.
>> I believe the driver can happy work for next kernel.
>
> I've taken a look at the driver and here are some global remarks:
>
> (1) You provide dt-bindings/power-domain/rk3288.h in patch 3. This breaks
> bisectability, as the driver itself in patch 2 also includes the header and
> would thus fail to compile if the later patch 3 is missing.
> Ideally I think the header addition should be a separate patch itself, so that
> we can possibly share it between driver and dts branches.
> So 1: binding doc, 2: binding-header, 3: driver, 4: dts-changes.
>
>
> (2) The dts-changes in patch 3 should also add any necessary power-domain
> assignment on devices if they're still missing, so that we don't introduce
> regressions. In my case my work-in-progress edp died because the powerdomain
> was turned off automatically it seems.
>
>
> (3) more like wondering @Kevin or so, is there some more generic place for a
> power-domain driver nowadays?
I think the preference has been to put these under drivers/soc/<vendor> for now,
so they can shared across arm32 and arm64.
> (4) As Tomasz remarked previously the dts should represent the hardware and
> the power-domains are part of the pmu. There is a recent addition from Linus
> Walleij, called simple-mfd [a] that is supposed to get added real early for
> kernel 4.2. So I'd think the power-domains should use that and the patchset
> modified to include the changes shown below [b]?
>
> (5) Keven Hilman and Tomasz had reservations about all the device clocks
> being listed in the power-domains itself in the previous versions. I don't see
> a comment from them yet changing that view.
Correct.
> Their wish was to get the clocks by reading the clocks from the device nodes,
> though I see a problem on how to handle devices that do not have any bindings
> at all yet.
>
> Kevin, Tomasz any new thoughts?
I don't see any issues with devices that don't have bindings, as all
that would be needed would be to simple device nodes with a clock
property. I wouldn't even matter if those devices had device drivers.
Kevin
--
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