From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/8] mfd: introduce a driver for LPSS devices on SPT Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 22:27:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20150727212748.GF21114@x1> References: <1438009443-55317-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20150727160447.GL1577@lahna.fi.intel.com> <20150727162413.GE21114@x1> <4701357.XbJcg3OWzk@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4701357.XbJcg3OWzk@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Mika Westerberg , Andy Shevchenko , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Vinod Koul , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, Heikki Krogerus , Jarkko Nikula , "Wysocki, Rafael J" , mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@codeaurora.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, July 27, 2015 05:24:13 PM Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Mika Westerberg wrote: > >=20 > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 04:27:33PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > FAO Stephen Boyd, > > > >=20 > > > > > Stephen, can you, please, have a look into patch 8 regarding = to clock name > > > > > matching and other stuff Lee asked? > > > >=20 > > > > Patch 8: > > > >=20 > > > > "Can you review the clock implementation please? It look= s > > > > fragile to me as it relies heavily on device names constr= ucted > > > > of MFD cell names and IDA numbers cat'ed together!" > > >=20 > > > Lee, can you suggest an alternative then? > > >=20 > > > Why we are doing it like this is that number of different LPSS de= vices > > > changes from SoC to SoC. In addition to that the device (called "= slice") > > > might have iDMA block or not. > > >=20 > > > Since the drivers in question (pxa2xx-spi, i2c-designware and 825= 0_dw) > > > use standard clk framework to request their clocks the Linux devi= ce must > > > have clock registered which matches the device in advance. > > >=20 > > > Because we add the host controller device dynamically (from the M= =46D > > > driver) based on how many devices are actually present, we need s= omehow > > > predict what would be the correct name and instance number for th= at > > > device to get the clock for it. That's the reason we use IDA here= along > > > with the cell name (or driver name). > >=20 > > I'm sure there are perfectly viable reasons for you doing this. An= d I > > don't know the CCF well enough to know whether it's the best idea o= r > > not, or else I would have made a suggestion rather than waiting all > > this time. > >=20 > > It's for this reason that I needed Mike (now Stephen) to take a loo= k > > and give me either an Ack, to say it's the best solution, or to > > provide a better alternative. > >=20 > > Until that happens, I'm stuck! >=20 > Well, what if we had no one at hand to review that code? Would that = mean it > would not be applicable forever? No, but that's not the case is it? I don't understand why Mike and Stephen aren't helping! --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog