From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Viresh Kumar Subject: Re: [RFC v2 5/6] drivers: boot_constraint: Add initial DT bindings Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:06:08 +0530 Message-ID: <20170713093608.GF352@vireshk-i7> References: <0610277aef9830cff53b7b53cf41cc54886fdc7f.1499770771.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , Mark Rutland , Vincent Guittot , Mark Brown , Stephen Boyd , Rajendra Nayak , Shiraz Hashim , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 12-07-17, 16:28, Rob Herring wrote: > Display is a pretty well known use case here. Do you have other > examples in mind? No, I don't. @Stephen: Do you have more cases like this for your Qcom products ? > Other cases I've seen are automotive with keeping > the backup camera going and CAN bus handling. Though my new car has a > flicker shortly after coming on, so I guess the handoff doesn't have > to be completely seemless. :) :) > [...] > > > + mmc: mmc@0x0 { > > + ... > > + ... > > + vmmc-supply = <&twl_reg1>; > > + vmmcaux-supply = <&twl_reg2>; > > + boot-constraint-supplies = "vmmc", "vmmcaux"; > > + boot-constraint-uV = <1800000 2000000>, /* vmmc */ > > + <2000000 2000000>; /* vmmcaux */ > > No. I don't like how this is going to extend to all the other bindings > people are going to want constraints for. We don't need a parallel set > of properties for each type of binding. Fair enough. > I'm not convinced that we need a general solution for what's probably > a handful of things that need a handoff versus just re-initialize. What about keeping the first four patches (mostly) as it is and adding these constraints from a platform specific constraints driver ? Will that be acceptable ? -- viresh