Re: [PATCH] limit power budget on spitz

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

On Thursday 08 June 2006 10:09 am, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 10:22:50AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:02 +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > > +	if (machine_is_spitz()) {
> > > > > +		/* Warning, not coming from any official docs. But
> > > > > +		 * spitz is unable to properly power wireless card
> > > > > +		 * claiming 500mA -- usb interface work but wireless
> > > > > +		 * does not. */
> > > > > +		hcd->power_budget = 250;
> > > > > +	}
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Should this value not be specified by the platform in the platform data
> > > > rather than a set of machine_is_xxx statements in the driver itself? I
> > > > already put most of the infrastructure for that into place.
> > > 
> > > Well, it has quite few users now, and this is how it works in
> > > ohci-omap. Yes, if we get more of such hooks, it probably needs to be
> > > moved to platform data...
> > 
> > Just because the omap does it that way, doesn't mean it can't be done
> > better ;-).

Agreed that platform_data is a better approach overall for holding that
power budget.  OMAP and AT91 should do so too.


> > I've also just realised the above doesn't account for akita 
> > or borzoi. Since the hardware is identical in this area, the same
> > changes should be applied for those machines. If we use the platform
> > device/data approach, we don't have this problem as they all use the
> > same platform device :)
> 
> So what do folk want me to do?  Blindly merge the patch (hint: it's still
> in the incoming queue...)

Sounds like someone should update the patch to (a) use a 150 mA budget,
and (b) test for those other machines.  As a near term patch, anyway.

Unless there's a patch to provide and use platform_data ... but that'd
be much more involved, since ISTR the PXA platforms don't yet have a
mechanism to provide board-specific platform_data.  (I'll suggest the
AT91 code as a model there; it's simpler hardware than OMAP, so the
code is more straightforward.)

- Dave