[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YSOxnqiia+FqfOX6@orome.fritz.box>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 16:33:02 +0200
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
Cc: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
Peter Chen <peter.chen@...nel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Lucas Stach <dev@...xeye.de>, Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-tegra <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux USB List <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Media Mailing List <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 07/34] clk: tegra: Support runtime PM and power domain
On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 08:45:54PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 20.08.2021 16:08, Ulf Hansson пишет:
> ...
> >> I suppose if there's really no good way of doing this other than
> >> providing a struct device, then so be it. I think the cleaned up sysfs
> >> shown in the summary above looks much better than what the original
> >> would've looked like.
> >>
> >> Perhaps an additional tweak to that would be to not create platform
> >> devices. Instead, just create struct device. Those really have
> >> everything you need (.of_node, and can be used with RPM and GENPD). As I
> >> mentioned earlier, platform device implies a CPU-memory-mapped bus,
> >> which this clearly isn't. It's kind of a separate "bus" if you want, so
> >> just using struct device directly seems more appropriate.
> >
> > Just a heads up. If you don't use a platform device or have a driver
> > associated with it for probing, you need to manage the attachment to
> > genpd yourself. That means calling one of the dev_pm_domain_attach*()
> > APIs, but that's perfectly fine, ofcourse.
> >
> >>
> >> We did something similar for XUSB pads, see drivers/phy/tegra/xusb.[ch]
> >> for an example of how that was done. I think you can do something
> >> similar here.
>
> We need a platform device because we have a platform device driver that
> must be bound to the device, otherwise PMC driver state won't be synced
> since it it's synced after all drivers of devices that reference PMC
> node in DT are probed.
I think the causality is the wrong way around. It's more likely that you
added the platform driver because you have a platform device that you
want to bind against.
You can have drivers bind to other types of devices, although it's a bit
more work than abusing platform devices for it.
There's the "auxiliary" bus that seems like it would be a somewhat
better fit (see Documentation/driver-api/auxiliary_bus.rst), though it
doesn't look like this fits the purpose exactly. I think a custom bus
(or perhaps something that could be deployed more broadly across CCF)
would be more appropriate.
Looking around, it seems like clk/imx and clk/samsung abuse the platform
bus in a similar way, so they would benefit from a "clk" bus as well.
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists