Perhaps I misunderstood what you were suggesting.  I thought that, when
you said "explicitly manage all their resources", you meant that the
driver should know the platform-specific details about clocks and power
domains.  That is one possible interpretation of the word "explicit".

Now I see that you meant that the driver should explicitly call
abstracted functions.


On 10/23/2012 7:20 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:

HI,

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 07:02:09AM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:

quoted

On 10/23/2012 12:03 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:

quoted

Hi,

I much prefer having drivers explicitly manage all their resources,
which would mean that pinctrl calls need to be done on probe() and, if
necessary, during suspend()/resume().

Per-driver resource management is certainly convenient when you are
dealing with a single system, but it becomes difficult to maintain for
drivers that are shared among many platforms.

why ? look at drivers/usb/dwc3/, we're using that on OMAP, exynos, PCIe
and a couple of different FPGA implementations inside TI. Not to mention
what other licensees of that IP core might have internally.

So far no problesm with resources at all.

We have frameworks exactly to hide the differences.

quoted

The industry trend for many years has been consolidation around a single
programming model per class of device.  For example, SDHCI, EHCI, ATA.
This trend will only accelerate, as the cost of developing controller IP
and associated drivers increases.  Such drivers need to be as
platform-agnostic as possible.

that's why we have pinctrl framework to abstract the details about pin
muxing.