On 21.08.2014 16:07, Pankaj Dubey wrote:

+Arnd, Lee Jones

Hi Tomasz,

On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 Tomasz Figa wrote:

quoted

Hi Bart,

On 18.08.2014 19:42, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On Monday, July 28, 2014 08:40:52 AM Pankaj Dubey wrote:

quoted

Hi Tomasz,

On Friday, July 25, 2014 Tomasz Figa wrote:

quoted

To: Pankaj Dubey; 'Kukjin Kim';
linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org;

linux-

quoted

samsung-soc at vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux at arm.linux.org.uk; t.figa at samsung.com;
vikas.sajjan at samsung.com; joshi at samsung.com; naushad at samsung.com;
thomas.ab at samsung.com; chow.kim at samsung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/4] ARM: EXYNOS: Add platform driver support
for Exynos PMU

Hi Pankaj, Kukjin,

On 25.07.2014 07:32, Pankaj Dubey wrote:

quoted

Hi Kukjin,

On Friday, July 25, 2014 Kukjin Kim wrote:

[snip]

quoted

quoted

quoted

Looks good to me, will apply this and 4/4.

We need to hold these two patches until dependent patch [1] from
Tomasz Figa gets merged.

[1]: mfd: syscon: Decouple syscon interface from syscon devices
      https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/24/188

That RFC patch had few comments from Arnd needed to be addressed, so
it

needs a

quoted

new revision.

Pankaj, If I remember correctly, we had talked about this and the

conclusion was that

quoted

you would take care of addressing the comments and sending new
version of

the

quoted

patch. Any update on this or have I missed something?

Well, I don't think we concluded as such anything.
Since this patch needs to get in so that Exynos PMU and PM related
changes can go in, I discussed with you saying that I am not able to
understand about Arnd's comments and if possible and time permits I
will look into it. Meanwhile I got busy with some other official
work, so could not get time to look into it.

Tomasz/Pankaj, could we please get some agreement on what needs to be
done and who should do the pending work?

syscon patch is blocking PMU cleanup patches which in turn are
blocking PMU support additions for new SoCs (Exynos5420/5800 and
Exynos3250 PMU patches).

Leaving alone the matter who is going to take care of it for now, the

remaining work

quoted

to do is to further decouple syscon from struct device, which means

providing of_

quoted

API to register a syscon provider on a device tree node even before driver

model is

quoted

available yet.

As per Arnd's comment on your RFC patch he mentioned -
"I believe the part you are missing is that with the approach I suggested,
there would be no registration function at all."

I think he is not in favor of adding such registration function at all. So
do you think
adding such function will really solve the problem?

Further even Lee Jones agreed to Arnd's point of making syscon independent
of device,
but he also mentioned that it can be done in subsequent patch.

Let's look again at the original thread then...

I believe Lee agreed with my proposed solution or at least he quoted my
e-mail and pointed that further work addressing Arnd's comments could be
done in follow up patches. I also think that we should rather make one
step as a time, especially this patch is required for further clean-up
of Exynos.

However there was also a reply from Michal Simek, which pointed out that
even with my patch the syscon is still bound to driver model and for his
use case he would need a purely OF-based version of the API. That's why
I think my patch should be re-spun with changes I mentioned in my
previous message in this thread.

  
So in IMHO, your RFC patch can be taken as is, and any further improvement
suggested
by Arnd can be done in subsequent patches,  because as I can see in 3.17-rc1
still
has user of syscon_regmap_lookup_by_pdevname (clps711x.c) so we can't
completely
make it independent of platform_device as of now and also the changes
required
as per Arnd's suggestions requires considerable effort and time.

Agreed. However we can still provide OF-only syscon registration
function and modify look-up functions to allow syscons without struct
device pointer, just with OF node.

Best regards,
Tomasz