From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "santosh.shilimkar@oracle.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] ARM: keystone: pm: switch to use generic pm domains Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 18:18:24 -0800 Message-ID: <546AAC70.4070905@oracle.com> References: <1415631557-22897-1-git-send-email-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> <1600093.60yAP0Qpua@wuerfel> <7h389h3aif.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <1618855.DXsjWXLqau@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1618855.DXsjWXLqau@wuerfel> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann , Kevin Hilman Cc: Grygorii Strashko , ssantosh@kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , grant.likely@secretlab.ca, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Ulf Hansson , Geert Uytterhoeven , Dmitry Torokhov List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 11/17/14 12:37 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 17 November 2014 11:14:16 Kevin Hilman wrote: >>>> >>>> So, The Keystone 2 Generic PM Controller is just a proxy PM layer here between >>>> device and Generic clock manipulation PM callbacks. >>>> It fills per-device clock list when device is attached to GPD and >>>> ensures that all clocks from that list enabled/disabled when device is >>>> started/stopped. >>> >>> The idea of such a generic power domain implementation sounds useful, but >>> it has absolutely no business in platform specific code. >> >> Yes it does. This isn't a generic power domain implementation, but >> rather just the platform-specific glue that hooks up the clocks to the >> right devices and power-domains so that the generic power-domain and >> generic pm_clocks code does the right thing. > > How would you do this on an arm64 version of keystone then? With > the current approach, you'd need to add a machine specific directory, > and that seems completely pointless since this is not even about > a hardware requirement. > The Keystone PM domain code actually doesn't have to be under machine code. Infact my first patch I added that under drivers/bus/ and later based on Kevin's suggestion moved under machine. That time the Keystone 64 bit arch point I couldn't bring up for other reasons. But the code itself can be easily moved to drivers/power/ without any issue if thats what is the concern here. Regards, Santosh