From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751229AbdGMJgO (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Thu, 13 Jul 2017 05:36:14 -0400
Received: from mail-pg0-f50.google.com ([74.125.83.50]:33889 "EHLO
        mail-pg0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1750854AbdGMJgM (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Thu, 13 Jul 2017 05:36:12 -0400
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2017 15:06:08 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
        Shiraz Hashim <shashim@codeaurora.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 5/6] drivers: boot_constraint: Add initial DT bindings
Message-ID: <20170713093608.GF352@vireshk-i7>
References: <cover.1499770771.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <0610277aef9830cff53b7b53cf41cc54886fdc7f.1499770771.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
 <CAL_Jsq+oAB3gejRMXuY0q9+Et4GrtvF3RwGzPNJ08TPooVyXJg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAL_Jsq+oAB3gejRMXuY0q9+Et4GrtvF3RwGzPNJ08TPooVyXJg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 12-07-17, 16:28, Rob Herring wrote:
> Display is a pretty well known use case here. Do you have other
> examples in mind?

No, I don't.

@Stephen: Do you have more cases like this for your Qcom products ?

> Other cases I've seen are automotive with keeping
> the backup camera going and CAN bus handling. Though my new car has a
> flicker shortly after coming on, so I guess the handoff doesn't have
> to be completely seemless. :)

:)

> [...]
> 
> > +       mmc: mmc@0x0 {
> > +               ...
> > +               ...
> > +               vmmc-supply = <&twl_reg1>;
> > +               vmmcaux-supply = <&twl_reg2>;
> > +               boot-constraint-supplies = "vmmc", "vmmcaux";
> > +               boot-constraint-uV = <1800000 2000000>, /* vmmc */
> > +                                    <2000000 2000000>; /* vmmcaux */
> 
> No. I don't like how this is going to extend to all the other bindings
> people are going to want constraints for. We don't need a parallel set
> of properties for each type of binding.

Fair enough.

> I'm not convinced that we need a general solution for what's probably
> a handful of things that need a handoff versus just re-initialize.

What about keeping the first four patches (mostly) as it is and adding
these constraints from a platform specific constraints driver ?

Will that be acceptable ?

-- 
viresh