From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 11:06:51 +0900 Subject: [PATCHv9 1/3] Runtime Interpreted Power Sequences In-Reply-To: References: <20121120215429.B621F3E1821@localhost> <13540495.epaCf4JVn9@percival> <50ACB59B.4090404@iki.fi> <20121121114018.GA31576@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> <50ACC341.3090204@ti.com> <20121121130039.GA12191@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> <50ACD7DC.5060405@ti.com> <20121121151209.GA4048@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> Message-ID: <20121122020649.GH4371@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:01:34AM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote: > The thing I don't understand here is why would anyone want power > sequences without the DT representation. Guys, that's the whole point! :) > If we are to implement things into drivers, then callback functions > are going to serve us just as well - even better, for they are more > flexible. All we need to do is define a dedicated ops structure and > have the driver plug the right callback functions depending on the > "compatible" property of the DT device node. We don't need a framework > for that. It allows drivers (both board drivers and actual drivers) to write these things in a semi-scripted form instead of having to open code everything each time, it'd save a bunch of tedious stuff with resource requesting for example. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: