Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] mfd: tps65219: Add driver for TI TPS65219 PMIC

[Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>]

jerome Neanne <jneanne@baylibre.com> writes:

> On 09/11/2022 22:59, Andrew Davis wrote:
>> On 11/7/22 3:14 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 13:58-20221104, jerome Neanne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you try an compile with W=1 please.
>>>>> This raise one warning on mfd:
>>>>> drivers/mfd/tps65219.c:28:12: warning: ‘tps65219_soft_shutdown’ 
>>>>> defined but
>>>>> not used [-Wunused-function]
>>>>>     28 | static int tps65219_soft_shutdown(struct tps65219 *tps)
>>>>>        |            ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> soft_shutdown has been validated and is used in TI baseline even if not
>>>>> hooked in upstream version further to this review:
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220825150224.826258-5-msp@baylibre.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a TI requirement to implement it...
>>>>> Let me know if you want me to remove this function or if we can keep 
>>>>> it like
>>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> There are platforms without psci, correct? I think the comment was to
>>>> drop the force override with system-power-controller property,
>>>>
>>>> if (!pm_power_off) {
>>>>     tps65219_i2c_client = client;
>>>>     pm_power_off = &tps65219_pm_power_off;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Could still be valid for such platforms, no? I do see that the
>>>> capability that the PMIC has - which is software shutdown is a valid
>>>> feature that we support in many different PMIC drivers. Is'nt the job of
>>>> the driver to introduce the functionality in a manner that is
>>>> appropriate to the OS framework?
>>>
>>> Yeah, I think Nishanth is right here.
>>>
>>> We should probably keep the `if (!pm_power_off)` part so the PMIC will
>>> be used if PSCI is not, but it also allows an easy way to test/use the 
>>> PMIC
>>> shutdown functionality downstream if needed.
>>>
>> 
>> Then should be using the sys-off handler API[0] so it doesn't block PSCI
>> which is also switching over[1].
>> 
>> Andrew
>> 
>> [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/894511/
>> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg1024127.html
> Can we go for upstream with v7 without tps65219_soft_shutdown. Then if 
> everyone agrees with Andrew proposal, I'll submit a separate patch which 
> adds implementation of tps65219_soft_shutdown support through sys-off 
> handler.
>
> So that we are not blocking upstream in case further 
> discussions/alignment are required.

Seems OK to me.  Nishanth?  Andrew?

But I think you'll need to at least submit a v8 without the unused
code/dead code that Lee pointed out.

Kevin