[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqJssPABjoRM-XAnuN_Xd2-sHoFifJNrRDdk_ruQ0DRw6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2017 09:30:22 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: JeffyChen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v12 4/5] PCI / PM: Add support for the PCIe WAKE#
signal for OF
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 7:32 PM, JeffyChen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> On 12/27/2017 07:56 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > drivers/of/of_pci_irq.c | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Please move this to drivers/pci/of.c (or perhaps create pci/of_irq.c).
>>
>>> > drivers/pci/Makefile | 1 +
>>> > drivers/pci/pci-driver.c | 10 +++++++
>>> > drivers/pci/pci-of.c | 75
>>> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> We already have drivers/pci/of.c. It's not clear what the difference is
>> from the filenames. Either merge with of.c or perhaps of-pm.c.
>
>
> this new file does something similar to the pci-acpi.c and pci-mid.c..
pci-acpi.c has similar things to pci/of.c. The naming is just not consistent.
Also, I plan to move the rest of drivers/of/of_pci* to drivers/pci.
> and i am agree the naming is not clear, maybe we can rename both of those
> files to something like pci-pm-***.c?
At least pci-acpi.c is more than just PM functions, so that doesn't
make sense. Given that all the ACPI related functions are in 1 file,
we should do the same for DT.
>
> Hi Rafael, do you think this would make sense?
>
>
[...]
>>> >+static int __init of_pci_init(void)
>>> >+{
>>> >+ if (!acpi_disabled)
>>> >+ return 0;
>>> >+
>>> >+ pci_set_platform_pm(&of_pci_platform_pm);
>>
>> I guess no DT based system will override this?
>
>
> i think the !acpi_disabled means acpi been disabled or CONFIG_ACPI is
> undefined.
>
> and pci-acpi.c would only work when we have CONFIG_ACPI.
>
> but i have no idea about pci-mid.c or would it possible to have more
> platform pm ops in the future...maybe we should add some dependency in the
> Kconfig?
It's probably fine given there are only 2 other implementations so far.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists