From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@deeprootsystems.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:13:35 -0700 Subject: [PATCH/RFC] Runtime PM: ARM: subarch-specific extensions of pdev_archdata In-Reply-To: (Eric Miao's message of "Thu\, 24 Sep 2009 07\:30\:40 +0800") References: <1253670648-28610-1-git-send-email-khilman@deeprootsystems.com> <19129.63264.653666.70492@pilspetsen.it.uu.se> <4ABAAF1D.6090907@deeprootsystems.com> Message-ID: <87k4yhagv4.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Eric Miao writes: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Kevin Hilman > wrote: >> Mikael Pettersson wrote: >>> >>> Eric Miao writes: >>> ?> On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:50 AM, Kevin Hilman >>> ?> wrote: >>> ?> > On ARM platforms, power management can be very platform specific. >>> ?> > This patch allows ARM subarches to extend the platform_device >>> ?> > pdev_archdata for each subarch by creating a new struct pdev_machdata >>> ?> > and allowing each subarch to customize it as needed. >>> ?> > >>> ?> > As a starting point, each subarch's creates an empty >>> ?> > struct pdev_machdata. >>> ?> > >>> ?> ?> Shouldn't that pdev_archdata and pdev_machdata be pointer or >>> something >>> ?> so that multiple platform_device can share something in common? >>> >>> Forcing it to be a pointer has allocation and lifetime implications. >>> Making it a struct allows the subarch to duplicate or share >>> (via a private pointer) data as it sees fit. >> >> Yes, the allocation/lifetime issues were why a struct was chosen. >> > > Mmm... this makes sense to me. I'm ok with this patch - just wondering > for the moment what to put for the pxa architecture - I'll see what davinci > will do first, of course :) OK, after no further comments, sending this patch to the patch system. Kevin