From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hzpeterchen@gmail.com (Peter Chen) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 15:46:37 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v6 0/8] power: add power sequence library In-Reply-To: References: <20160824085335.GB27233@shlinux2> <20160829111045.GB3736@b29397-desktop> <3a45793f-18d9-0688-d2ab-ef79432c473c@linaro.org> <20160831095220.GA11938@b29397-desktop> <20160902011046.GB11262@shlinux2> Message-ID: <20160919074637.GA10289@b29397-desktop> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:09:10PM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > > > On Friday 09 September 2016 02:17 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >[...] > > > >>>>>We had an agreement that keep mmc's pwrseq framework unchanging. > >>>>>Unless Ulf and rob both agree to change. > >>>>Why 2 separate approach for same problem ? > >>>>And I see this as possible duplication of code/functionality :) > >>>How the new kernel compatibles old dts? If we do not need to > >>>consider this problem, the mmc can try to use power sequence library > >>>too in future. > >> > >>I think we should attempt to get both MMC and USB power seq > >>come on one agreement, so that it can be reused. > >That would be nice. Although, to do that you would have to allow some > >DT bindings to be deprecated in the new generic power seq bindings, as > >otherwise you would break existing DTBs. > > > >I guess that is what Rob was objecting to!? > > yeah, thats right. > > So lets adopt similar implementation for USB as well instead of > library, but keeping MMC untouched as of now. > > What I am trying to propose here is, > > Lets have power-sequence framework (similar to V1 of this series), > with, > > pwrseq: Core framework for power sequence. > pwrseq_generic/simple: for all generic control, like reset and clock > pwrseq_emmc: probably duplication of existing code - the idea > here is, all future code should be using this new > binding, so that we can deprecate the > drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq > pwrseq_arche: The usecase which I am dealing with today, which is more > complex in nature. > > Then the respective drivers can add their drivers (if needed) based on > complexity. > > comments ?? The key point here is DT maintainer (Rob) doesn't agree with adding new node for power sequence at dts. -- Best Regards, Peter Chen