linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] firmware: scpi: add device power domain support using genpd

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: <CAPDyKFrerQU61iN6qjLLbw_=xmodmkGCZMEx29kC6arOzMfHiw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 15 Jun 2016 15:29:48 +0200
From:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To:	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jon Medhurst <tixy@...aro.org>,
	Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
	Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] firmware: scpi: add device power domain support using genpd

[...]

>
>>> +static const struct of_device_id scpi_power_domain_ids[] = {
>>> +       { .compatible = "arm,scpi-power-domains", },
>>> +       { /* sentinel */ }
>>> +};
>>
>>
>> Actually I think you shouldn't implement this a standalone driver and
>> thus you can remove this compatible.
>>
>
> While I tend to agree, I did this to keep it aligned with other SCPI
> users(clocks, sensors,.. for example).
>
> I assume remove compatible just from driver ? IMO, it doesn't make sense
> to add power domain provider without a compatible.
>
>> Instead, I think it's better if you let the arm_scpi driver to also
>> initialize the PM domain.
>>
>
> OK, I can do that.
>
>> If you still want the PM domain code to be maintained in a separate
>> file, just provide a header file which declares an
>> "scpi_pm_domain_init()" function (and a stub when not supported),
>> which the arm_scpi driver should call during ->probe().
>>
>
> I am fine with that, just that it deviates from the approach taken in
> other subsystems as I mentioned above.

If DT maintainers are happy with you adding a compatible for this,
don't let me stop you from implementing this as standalone driver.

I have no strong opinions about it, so perhaps it's then better to not
deviate from other cases!?

Kind regards
Uffe