From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 09:15:34 +0200 Message-ID: <537C5296.7050801@linaro.org> References: <1397212815-16068-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1397212815-16068-19-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <201405091256.54755.arnd@arndb.de> <536CC3C6.6070804@samsung.com> <5370E648.10006@linaro.org> <5374CA34.1030405@samsung.com> <5375262C.10805@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com ([209.85.212.176]:46354 "EHLO mail-wi0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750883AbaEUHPW (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 May 2014 03:15:22 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id n15so7127975wiw.9 for ; Wed, 21 May 2014 00:15:21 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5375262C.10805@samsung.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Kukjin Kim , Tomasz Figa , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Mark Rutland , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, Rob Herring , Grant Likely , linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org On 05/15/2014 10:40 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote: [ ... ] >>>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there = is >>>> any >>>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matc= hing >>>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific >>>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any avail= able >>>> infrastructure for this. >>> >>> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1]. >>> >>> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the= code >>> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code. >>> >>> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle a= nd >>> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the re= view >>> and the maintenance. >>> >>> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would >>> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. = That >>> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this = is >>> what does this patchset at the end). >>> >>> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link err= or >>> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to >>> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej. >> >> In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but I= 'd >> consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice >> intermediate step towards further clean-up. >> >> So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the >> development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward= =2E >> > I'm fine. > > Arnd, how about you? > > - Kukjin Arnd ? --=20 Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software fo= r ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 09:15:34 +0200 Subject: [PATCH V5 18/20] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Pass the AFTR callback to the platform_data In-Reply-To: <5375262C.10805@samsung.com> References: <1397212815-16068-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1397212815-16068-19-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <201405091256.54755.arnd@arndb.de> <536CC3C6.6070804@samsung.com> <5370E648.10006@linaro.org> <5374CA34.1030405@samsung.com> <5375262C.10805@samsung.com> Message-ID: <537C5296.7050801@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 05/15/2014 10:40 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote: [ ... ] >>>> Exynos cpuidle is not a device on the SoC, so I don't think there is >>>> any >>>> way to represent it in DT. The only thing I could see this is matching >>>> root node with a central SoC driver that instantiates specific >>>> subdevices, such as cpufreq and cpuidle, but I don't see any available >>>> infrastructure for this. >>> >>> There is a RFC for defining generic idle states [1]. >>> >>> The idea behind using the platform driver framework is to unify the code >>> across the different drivers and separate the PM / cpuidle code. >>> >>> By this way, we can move the different drivers to drivers/cpuidle and >>> store them in a single place. That make easier the tracking, the review >>> and the maintenance. >>> >>> I am ok to by using platform_device_register_resndata() but I would >>> prefer to do that a bit later by converting the other drivers too. That >>> will be easier if we have them grouped in a single directory (this is >>> what does this patchset at the end). >>> >>> As there are some more work based on this patchset and the link error >>> could be fixed as an independent patch, I would recommend to >>> re-integrate it in the tree as asked by Bartlomiej. >> >> In general, it would be nice to have everything done properly, but I'd >> consider Daniel's series as a huge improvement already and a nice >> intermediate step towards further clean-up. >> >> So based on the comments quoted above, instead of stalling the >> development, I'd suggest to accept this series and then move forward. >> > I'm fine. > > Arnd, how about you? > > - Kukjin Arnd ? -- Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog