Re: [PATCH v6 0/8] mfd: introduce a driver for LPSS devices on SPT

Lee Jones
2015-07-27T21:27:48Z

On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> On Monday, July 27, 2015 05:24:13 PM Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 04:27:33PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > FAO Stephen Boyd,
> > > >
> > > > > Stephen, can you, please, have a look into patch 8 regarding to clock name
> > > > > matching and other stuff Lee asked?
> > > >
> > > > Patch 8:
> > > >
> > > > "Can you review the clock implementation please? It looks
> > > > fragile to me as it relies heavily on device names constructed
> > > > of MFD cell names and IDA numbers cat'ed together!"
> > >
> > > Lee, can you suggest an alternative then?
> > >
> > > Why we are doing it like this is that number of different LPSS devices
> > > changes from SoC to SoC. In addition to that the device (called "slice")
> > > might have iDMA block or not.
> > >
> > > Since the drivers in question (pxa2xx-spi, i2c-designware and 8250_dw)
> > > use standard clk framework to request their clocks the Linux device must
> > > have clock registered which matches the device in advance.
> > >
> > > Because we add the host controller device dynamically (from the MFD
> > > driver) based on how many devices are actually present, we need somehow
> > > predict what would be the correct name and instance number for that
> > > device to get the clock for it. That's the reason we use IDA here along
> > > with the cell name (or driver name).
> >
> > I'm sure there are perfectly viable reasons for you doing this. And I
> > don't know the CCF well enough to know whether it's the best idea or
> > not, or else I would have made a suggestion rather than waiting all
> > this time.
> >
> > It's for this reason that I needed Mike (now Stephen) to take a look
> > and give me either an Ack, to say it's the best solution, or to
> > provide a better alternative.
> >
> > Until that happens, I'm stuck!
>
> Well, what if we had no one at hand to review that code? Would that mean it
> would not be applicable forever?

No, but that's not the case is it?

I don't understand why Mike and Stephen aren't helping!

--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog