Re: [PATCH v14 03/10] qcom: spm: Add Subsystem Power Manager driver

[Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>]

On 12/03/2014 09:35 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 December 2014 07:31:22 Lina Iyer wrote:
>>>>> +static int __init qcom_spm_init(void)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    int ret;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    /*
>>>>> +     * cpuidle driver need to registered before the cpuidle device
>>>>> +     * for any cpu. Register the device for the the cpuidle driver.
>>>>> +     */
>>>>> +    ret = platform_device_register(&qcom_cpuidle_drv);
>>>>> +    if (ret)
>>>>> +        return ret;
>>>> Stephen pointed out that we would have the platform device lying around
>>>> on a non-QCOM device when using multi_v7_defconfig.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I am missing the point, but this is not supposed to happen, no ?
>>>
>> This would happen, since the file would compile on multi_v7 and we would
>> initialize and register this device regardless. The cpuidle-qcom.c
>> driver probe would bail out looking for a matching compatible property.
>> So we would not register a cpuidle driver but the device would lay
>> around.
>
> I think the problem is registering a platform_device. I've complained
> about this before, but it still seems to get copied all over the
> place. Please don't do this but have a driver that looks at DT to
> figure out whether to access hardware or not.

We did this approach but, I can remember why, someone was complaining 
about it also :)

The platform device/driver paradigm allowed us to split the arch 
specific parts by passing the pm ops through the platform data.

Would make sense to have a single common place for the ARM arch where we 
initialize the platform device for cpuidle ?



-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog