From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751760AbdH2Jwf (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:52:35 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f170.google.com ([209.85.128.170]:37688 "EHLO mail-wr0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751180AbdH2Jwd (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Aug 2017 05:52:33 -0400 Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 11:52:17 +0200 From: Viresh Kumar To: Greg Kroah-Hartman Cc: Vincent Guittot , Mark Brown , Stephen Boyd , Rajendra Nayak , Shiraz Hashim , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, robdclark@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/8] drivers: Add boot constraints core Message-ID: <20170829095217.GA3101@ubuntu> References: <1a844e27ee7e0b22acf8ea582bf4e8d35f54c84a.1501578037.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20170829063923.GD12198@kroah.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170829063923.GD12198@kroah.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 29-08-17, 08:39, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > How is this information getting to the kernel from the bootloader? I > didn't see where that happened, just a single example driver that > somehow "knew" what had to happen, which seems odd... I tried to do it with DT earlier, but we couldn't reach to an agreement on what bindings to add and so this series started doing things the old way. The kernel would have platform specific drivers, which would exactly know what constraints to set and we wouldn't need the bootloaders to pass anything for now. > This is a lot of new code for no users, I agree and so added the patch 8/8 to show a real user. I will convert that to a patch going forward, which can be merged along with this series. > I would like to see at least 3 > real drivers that are using it before we merge it, as then you have a > chance of getting the user/kernel api correct. Hmm, so I am quite sure that this is a fairly generic problem to solve, specifically for all the handheld devices. I can get code for few of the Qcom SoCs but they may end up using the same platform driver. Not sure if I can get code for multiple SoC families in the beginning. -- viresh