Re: [PATCH 0/3] Support PMIC operation region for CrystalCove and XPower

[Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>]

On 11/12/2014 07:35 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 11:11:52 AM Lee Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, 11 Nov 2014, Aaron Lu wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/31/2014 02:08 PM, Aaron Lu wrote:
>>>> On Intel Baytrail-T and Baytrail-T-CR platforms, there are two customized
>>>> ACPI operation regions defined for the Power Management Integrated Circuit
>>>> device, one is for power resource handling and one is for thermal: sensor
>>>> temperature reporting, trip point setting, etc. There are different PMIC
>>>> chips used on those platforms and though each has the same two operation
>>>> regions and functionality, their implementation is different so every PMIC
>>>> will need a driver. But since their functionality is similar, some common
>>>> code is abstracted into the intel_soc_pmic_opregion.c.
>>>>
>>>> The last version is posted here:
>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/8/801
>>>>
>>>> Changes since then:
>>>> 1 Move to drivers/acpi as discussed on the above thread;
>>>> 2 Added support for XPower AXP288 PMIC operation region support;
>>>> 3 Since operation region handler can not be removed(at the moment at least),
>>>>   use bool for the two operation region driver configs instead of tristate;
>>>>   Another reason to do this is that, with Mika's MFD ACPI support patch, all
>>>>   those MFD cell devices created will have the same modalias as their parent's
>>>>   so it doesn't make much sense to compile these drivers into modules.
>>>>
>>>> Patch 1 applies on top of Rafael's pm-next branch, and then patch 2 and
>>>> patch 3 needs merge of Lee's mfd/ib-mfd-iio-3.19 branch where the PMIC
>>>> driver XPower AXP288 and iio driver axp288_adc is located.
>>>
>>> Since patch 2-3 are based on top of the mfd/ib-mfd-iio-3.19 branch, it
>>> would be easy to go through the mfd/ib-mfd-iio-3.19 branch.
>>>
>>> Rafael,
>>> Can I get your ACK for the three patches?
>>>
>>> Lee,
>>> Can you please take the series if Rafael gives it ack?
>>
>> Yes, no problem.
> 
> Well, since the code is going to reside mostly in drivers/acpi, I think I should
> be applying the patches and from your response it looks like you are fine with
> them.  Is that correct?

Oh I thought you may not want to merge another branch into your next
branch so I asked this question. If you can handle the whole thing in your
tree, that's of course not a problem :-)

Thanks,
Aaron