From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: snjw23@gmail.com (Sylwester Nawrocki) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 12:09:07 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: Exynos: Hook up power domains to generic power domain infrastructure In-Reply-To: References: <1323704789-23923-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <1323704789-23923-2-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <1323704789-23923-3-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <4EFA5154.9060606@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4EFAF8D3.9050204@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Thomas, On 12/28/2011 06:25 AM, Thomas Abraham wrote: >>> + >>> +static struct exynos4_pm_domain exynos4_pd_gps = { >>> + .base = (void __iomem *)S5P_PMU_GPS_CONF, >>> + .name = "pd-gps", >>> + .pd = { >>> + .power_off = exynos4_pd_power_off, >>> + .power_on = exynos4_pd_power_on, >>> + }, >>> +}; >> >> I'm not sure if arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c is the right place to add this. >> IMHO it would be much better to put PD in separate file, pm-runtime.c >> or something like this. > > Ok. I will move this to a new file pm-runtime.c. Thanks. >> Can we assume various exynos versions will have same S5P_PMU_*_CONF >> addresses? For old s3c64xx SoCs such assumption could be valid but I'm >> a bit uncertain about Exynos series. > > The addresses could be different, but it can be mapped to a > S5P_PMU_*_CONF. Maybe I did not understand your question here. I meant that for handling the newer SoCs (e.g. exynos5) at runtime we might need to create new power domain definitions. That's why I suggested new file for runtime PM. mach-shmobile has even separate compilation unit per SoC, with register definitions put directly in C file. I'm not sure we need separate pm-exynos4.c, pm-exynos5.c... For now your patch looks good. -- Regards, Sylwester