From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: balajitk@ti.com (Balaji T K) Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:10:54 +0530 Subject: [PATCH 4/6] pinctrl: single: Add support for wake-up interrupts In-Reply-To: <20131011160146.GR29913@atomide.com> References: <20131003054221.8941.87801.stgit@localhost> <5256AA7F.8030005@ti.com> <20131010160018.GA29913@atomide.com> <20131010162015.GC29913@atomide.com> <5257BD3E.5000707@ti.com> <20131011154352.GO29913@atomide.com> <20131011160146.GR29913@atomide.com> Message-ID: <5260E606.2030903@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 11 October 2013 09:31 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Linus Walleij [131011 09:05]: >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Linus Walleij [131011 03:40]: >>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Roger Quadros wrote: >>>> >>>>> The register handling is fine. But how do we deal with resource handling? >>>>> e.g. the block that has the deep-core registers might need to be clocked or powered >>>>> before the registers can be accessed. >>>> >>>> Yeah I saw this in the code there. >>>> >>>> In this case it seems syscon-type regmap access can be used to >>>> read/write the registers, so maybe the pin controller also need to >>>> get a handle on some clock etc? >>> >>> Uhh, let's not go there.. The resource availability needs to be >>> handled transparently in regmap code and the reg provider hardware >>> module driver using runtime PM. >> >> OK we can surely discuss this with broonie, it makes sense to >> have regmap be able to do its deed transparently. > > Yes I think so too. Sounds like we need callbacks for the runtime PM > checks to the "register provider" driver. Hwo knows, maybe those > features are there already :) > Hi Tony, Any conclusion on using regmap for omap control module non-mux registers ? Thanks and Regards, Balaji T K