Re: [PATCH 02/24] drivercore: Bind/unbind power domain on probe/remove
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: 2014-06-10 21:27:31
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, linux-devicetree
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:27:45PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 02:53:26 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:quoted
On 10 June 2014 14:11, Rafael J. Wysocki [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Ulf Hansson [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
From: Tomasz Figa <redacted> On a number of platforms, devices are part of controllable power domains, which need to be enabled before such devices can be accessed and may be powered down when the device is idle to save some power. This means that on systems that support power domain control using generic power domains subsystem, it is necessary to add device to its power domain before binding a driver to it and remove it from its power domain after its driver is unbound to make sure that an unused device does not affect power domain state. Since this is not limited to particular busses and specific archs/platforms,Actually, this isn't correrct. It is limited to the platforms that use Device Trees now.Correct, we should update the commit message/docs.quoted
Moreover, it is not consistent with the way we add devices to the ACPI PM domain, which is the ACPI counterpart of this.I am not sure why you think consistency for ACPI is important here. ACPI PM will still be able to handle it's domain/device registering as before. There are even other pm_domains that don't use genpd which need to handle this themselves.My point is that doing things like that in different places for different firmware interfaces is confusing and likely to lead to coding mistakes in the future.quoted
Or are you saying that you prefer bus notifiers in favour of making use of the driver core for this matter?Well, please grep for acpi_dev_pm_attach() and see where it is done. Surely not in drivers/base/dd.c. Also I'm not sure why you're talking about bus notifiers in this context.quoted
Shouldn't the driver core handle most of the common things for a device driver?Common, yes. Platform-specific, no.quoted
Let's compare how the pinctrls are being managed in the driver core, for example.pinctrl has Device Trees support only at the moment (as far as firmware interfaces go) and quite frankly I'm not sure if/how we'll need to change it to cover ACPI as well. But for power domains, please keep that stuff away from dd.c. That is, unless Greg specifically disagrees with me and decides to apply this patch regardless. :-)
Nope, no disagreement from me toward you at all here, keep up the good work :) greg k-h