Hi Thomas,

On Saturday 08 of September 2012 13:48:24 Thomas Abraham wrote:

quoted

+Example of the node using power domain:
+
+       node {
+               /* ... */
+               power-domain = <&lcd0>;
+               /* ... */
+       };

Since the value of power-domain property is mostly samsung specific,
should this be "samsung,power-domain" ?

Is there a convention of naming that defines such scheme? I have seen 
platform-specific properties without a prefix indicating the platform.

quoted

+static void exynos_read_domain_from_dt(struct device *dev)
+{
+       struct platform_device *pd_pdev;
+       struct exynos_pm_domain *pd;
+       struct device_node *node;
+
+       node = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node, "power-domain", 0);
+       if (!node)
+               return;
+       pd_pdev = of_find_device_by_node(node);
+       if (!pd_pdev)
+               return;
+       pd = platform_get_drvdata(pd_pdev);
+       exynos_add_device_to_domain(pd, dev);
+}

The function "exynos_read_domain_from_dt" does more than reading the
domain from dt. It associates a device with a power domain. So should
it be renamed accordingly?

Hmm, do you have an idea for a better name? I'm not good at inventing 
names.

quoted

+
+static int exynos_pm_notifier_call(struct notifier_block *nb,
+                                   unsigned long event, void *data)
+{
+       struct device *dev = data;
+
+       switch (event) {
+       case BUS_NOTIFY_BIND_DRIVER:
+               if (dev->of_node)
+                       exynos_read_domain_from_dt(dev);
+
+               break;
+
+       case BUS_NOTIFY_UNBOUND_DRIVER:
+               exynos_remove_device_from_domain(dev);
+
+               break;
+       }
+       return NOTIFY_DONE;
+}
+
+static struct notifier_block platform_nb = {
+       .notifier_call = exynos_pm_notifier_call,
+};

All the functions above are so generic (or can be made generic with
minor modifications) that it can be placed outside of mach-exynos. Or
better still, reusable for all platforms.

Right, I have considered this and even CC'ed Rafael with this patchset, but 
I forgot to mention about it in patch description.

Maybe I should send a separate RFC with a generic variant?

quoted

--
1.7.12

This patch looks so nice. I learned a thing or two from this patch.
Reviewed-by: Thomas Abraham <redacted>

Thanks ;)

--
Best regards,
Tomasz Figa