From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] mfd: Fix runtime warning caused by duplicate device registration
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:41:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FF58B68.5000703@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120705122947.GY4111@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
On 05/07/12 13:29, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 01:15:45PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On 05/07/12 13:06, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> You seemed to be suggesting that your fix was in some way related to the
>>> DT changes in the MFD core. I'm unsure as to the relationship here.
>
>> How is it not related? In English the patch would say; "Only
>> register the AB8500 via the MFD API when we're booting with Device
>> Tree. This allows AB8500 related devices to be registered in the
>> normal way, rather than registering them individually using DT and
>> prevents duplicate registration when we are not executing a Device
>> Tree enabled boot."
>
> This is what you said before and it still doesn't make much sense to me.
> I'd expect that if anything your first statement would be the opposite
> of what happens - it seems like your non-DT code is doing something
> really odd. If anything I'd expect adding a DT to add duplicate
> registrations, I'd not expect it to remove registrations.
>
> What I'd expect is that if we can figure out that we need to register
> the AB8500 automatically without any information from DT then we should
> be able to figure out exactly the same thing in the non-DT case. I
> would therefore expect that the change would instead be something which
> removes the other source of registrations.
Now you're confusing me. :)
If DT is _not_ enabled, we do:
From platform code:
- Register the DB8500-PRCMU
- Register the AB8500
So you see the registration is separate.
If DT _is_ enabled, we do:
From Device Tree:
- Register the DB8500-PRCMU (which in turn registers the AB8500)
In this case we the DB8500-PRCMU goes on to register the AB8500 for us,
so we need to ensure DT _is_ running before we go on to do that, because
if we don't the DB8500-PRCMU will register it and so will platform code.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
M: +44 77 88 633 515
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linus.walleij@stericsson.com,
arnd@arndb.de, sameo@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mfd: Fix runtime warning caused by duplicate device registration
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2012 13:41:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FF58B68.5000703@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120705122947.GY4111@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
On 05/07/12 13:29, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 01:15:45PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>> On 05/07/12 13:06, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>>> You seemed to be suggesting that your fix was in some way related to the
>>> DT changes in the MFD core. I'm unsure as to the relationship here.
>
>> How is it not related? In English the patch would say; "Only
>> register the AB8500 via the MFD API when we're booting with Device
>> Tree. This allows AB8500 related devices to be registered in the
>> normal way, rather than registering them individually using DT and
>> prevents duplicate registration when we are not executing a Device
>> Tree enabled boot."
>
> This is what you said before and it still doesn't make much sense to me.
> I'd expect that if anything your first statement would be the opposite
> of what happens - it seems like your non-DT code is doing something
> really odd. If anything I'd expect adding a DT to add duplicate
> registrations, I'd not expect it to remove registrations.
>
> What I'd expect is that if we can figure out that we need to register
> the AB8500 automatically without any information from DT then we should
> be able to figure out exactly the same thing in the non-DT case. I
> would therefore expect that the change would instead be something which
> removes the other source of registrations.
Now you're confusing me. :)
If DT is _not_ enabled, we do:
From platform code:
- Register the DB8500-PRCMU
- Register the AB8500
So you see the registration is separate.
If DT _is_ enabled, we do:
From Device Tree:
- Register the DB8500-PRCMU (which in turn registers the AB8500)
In this case we the DB8500-PRCMU goes on to register the AB8500 for us,
so we need to ensure DT _is_ running before we go on to do that, because
if we don't the DB8500-PRCMU will register it and so will platform code.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
M: +44 77 88 633 515
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-05 12:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 66+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-03 11:59 [PATCH 1/1] mfd: Fix runtime warning caused by duplicate device registration Lee Jones
2012-07-03 11:59 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-03 12:35 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-03 12:35 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-03 13:07 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-03 13:07 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-03 13:24 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-03 13:24 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-03 13:48 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-03 13:48 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-03 14:21 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-03 14:21 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 7:36 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 7:36 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 9:45 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 9:45 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 11:46 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 11:46 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 12:06 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 12:06 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 12:15 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 12:15 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 12:29 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 12:29 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 12:41 ` Lee Jones [this message]
2012-07-05 12:41 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 12:45 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 12:45 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 12:55 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 12:55 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 13:03 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 13:03 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 13:12 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 13:12 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 13:20 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 13:20 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 13:54 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 13:54 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 13:57 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 13:57 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 14:06 ` Samuel Ortiz
2012-07-05 14:06 ` Samuel Ortiz
2012-07-05 13:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-07-05 13:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-07-05 14:04 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 14:04 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 14:06 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 14:06 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 14:13 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 14:13 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 14:35 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 14:35 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 15:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-07-05 15:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-07-05 15:51 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 15:51 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-03 14:01 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-07-03 14:01 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-07-03 14:43 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-03 14:43 ` Mark Brown
2012-07-05 7:33 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 7:33 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 13:08 ` Fabio Estevam
2012-07-05 13:08 ` Fabio Estevam
2012-07-05 13:13 ` Lee Jones
2012-07-05 13:13 ` Lee Jones
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=4FF58B68.5000703@linaro.org \
--to=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.