All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@linaro.org>,
	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, rob.herring@calxeda.com,
	grant.likely@secretlab.ca, kgene.kim@samsung.com,
	patches@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Add OF support
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:44:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201112262144.42211.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111226192424.GN8722@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>

On Monday, December 26, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 08:13:19PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, December 12, 2011, Thomas Abraham wrote:
> 
> > > A device node pointer is added to generic pm domain structure to associate
> > > the domain with a node in the device tree.
> 
> > That sounds fine except for one thing: PM domains are not devices, so adding
> > "device node" pointers to them is kind of confusing.  Perhaps there should be
> > something like struct dt_node, representing a more general device tree node?
> 
> There's struct of_node which is exactly that, though practically
> speaking you need a device if you're going to bind automatically to
> something from the device tree in a sensible fashion and there is actual
> hardware under there so a device does make some sense.
> 
> This is in part compatibility with the existing Exynos code which uses
> devices to probe the domains for non-DT systems.

Well, that's not a general case, though.

It doesn't feel approporiate to use a "device node" pointer for something
that's not based on struct device, at least not a generic level, so I wonder
if there's a different way.

Thanks,
Rafael

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: rjw@sisk.pl (Rafael J. Wysocki)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Add OF support
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:44:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <201112262144.42211.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111226192424.GN8722@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>

On Monday, December 26, 2011, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 08:13:19PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, December 12, 2011, Thomas Abraham wrote:
> 
> > > A device node pointer is added to generic pm domain structure to associate
> > > the domain with a node in the device tree.
> 
> > That sounds fine except for one thing: PM domains are not devices, so adding
> > "device node" pointers to them is kind of confusing.  Perhaps there should be
> > something like struct dt_node, representing a more general device tree node?
> 
> There's struct of_node which is exactly that, though practically
> speaking you need a device if you're going to bind automatically to
> something from the device tree in a sensible fashion and there is actual
> hardware under there so a device does make some sense.
> 
> This is in part compatibility with the existing Exynos code which uses
> devices to probe the domains for non-DT systems.

Well, that's not a general case, though.

It doesn't feel approporiate to use a "device node" pointer for something
that's not based on struct device, at least not a generic level, so I wonder
if there's a different way.

Thanks,
Rafael

  reply	other threads:[~2011-12-26 20:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-12-12 15:46 [PATCH 0/2] ARM: Exynos: Adapt to generic power domain Thomas Abraham
2011-12-12 15:46 ` Thomas Abraham
2011-12-12 15:46 ` [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Add OF support Thomas Abraham
2011-12-12 15:46   ` Thomas Abraham
2011-12-12 15:46   ` [PATCH 2/2] ARM: Exynos: Hook up power domains to generic power domain infrastructure Thomas Abraham
2011-12-12 15:46     ` Thomas Abraham
2011-12-26 19:06     ` Mark Brown
2011-12-26 19:06       ` Mark Brown
2011-12-27 22:16       ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2011-12-27 22:16         ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2011-12-27 23:14     ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2011-12-27 23:14       ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2011-12-28  5:25       ` Thomas Abraham
2011-12-28  5:25         ` Thomas Abraham
2011-12-28 11:09         ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2011-12-28 11:09           ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2011-12-28 18:58     ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2011-12-28 18:58       ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2012-01-02  2:14       ` Thomas Abraham
2012-01-02  2:14         ` Thomas Abraham
2012-01-02 22:19         ` Sylwester Nawrocki
2012-01-02 22:19           ` Sylwester Nawrocki
     [not found]           ` <4F022D7D.3060802-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
2012-01-03  8:23             ` Thomas Abraham
2012-01-03  8:23               ` Thomas Abraham
2012-01-04  7:00               ` Grant Likely
2012-01-04  7:00                 ` Grant Likely
2012-01-04  7:29                 ` Kukjin Kim
2012-01-04  7:29                   ` Kukjin Kim
2011-12-26 11:29   ` [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Add OF support Mark Brown
2011-12-26 11:29     ` Mark Brown
2011-12-26 19:13   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-12-26 19:13     ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-12-26 19:24     ` Mark Brown
2011-12-26 19:24       ` Mark Brown
2011-12-26 20:44       ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2011-12-26 20:44         ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-12-28  5:10         ` Thomas Abraham
2011-12-28  5:10           ` Thomas Abraham
2011-12-28 22:17           ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2011-12-28 22:17             ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-01-02  3:47             ` Thomas Abraham
2012-01-02  3:47               ` Thomas Abraham
2012-01-03 22:30               ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-01-03 22:30                 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-01-05 15:42                 ` Thomas Abraham
2012-01-05 15:42                   ` Thomas Abraham
2012-01-02  6:59     ` Grant Likely
2012-01-02  6:59       ` Grant Likely
2012-01-03 22:28       ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-01-03 22:28         ` Rafael J. Wysocki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=201112262144.42211.rjw@sisk.pl \
    --to=rjw@sisk.pl \
    --cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
    --cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
    --cc=kgene.kim@samsung.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=patches@linaro.org \
    --cc=rob.herring@calxeda.com \
    --cc=thomas.abraham@linaro.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.