[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151121140428.GJ26072@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:04:28 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>,
Thierry Reding <treding@...dia.com>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...gle.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [RFD] Functional dependencies between devices
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 07:50:45AM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 11/17/2015 02:55 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > This is going to be really common but I'm not sure I see a problem with
> > it in terms of what Raphael is proposing - could you go into more detail
> > on the problem you see here?
> If clock provider is not a device driver and it depends on clocks of
> another clock
> provider you cannot 'translate' this dependency as dependency between
> devices,
What makes you say that this is the case? There should be nothing
stopping us having dependencies between two devices of the same type.
> so this RFD does not cover them.
> Additionally if you look into kernel there are many calls in form
> 'clk_get(NULL, name)',
> it suggests that not only clock providers are consumers without
> underlying device driver.
Like I said in my earlier reply:
| > - many clock providers, irq domains are not provided by devices,
| That seems like something we can and possibly should change if we want.
This applies just as much to consumers as to providers.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists