Re: [PATCH 2/2] platform: Facilitate the creation of pseudo-platform buses

Grant Likely [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

If the override is global to the platform_bus_type, then the model
will not scale.

It will not scale any more (or less) than the current functionality of
the driver model which handles this globally.  Again, if scalabilty
becomes a problem down the road, lets fix it then.

Alright, I can agree to that.  I do agree that the runtime override is
far and away better than the weak symbol approach.  However, there
needs to be some very clear rules in place for users of the override,
namely that users must understand that they are stewards of the
platform_bus_type, and must take care to preserve the default
behaviour for "uninteresting" devices.

Completely agree here.

Any overrides of the dev_pm_ops functions that do not also call the
pm_generic_* functions (or their equivalents) should be suspect.

I'll post a proposal for a runtime override shortly.

Also, the expectation should be that it is a temporary measure until a
better abstraction is implemented.  It might be that a separate
bus_type is the way to go (if the multiple driver registration problem
can be solved) or it might be a way to differentiate pm_ops either
per-device or per-parent.  I'm not sure, but I'm starting on an OMAP
project soon, so I may very well end up working on this.

Yes, I'll be glad to work on this too, but first I need to get through
reviewing the backlog of all the OMAP drivers we're converting to
runtime PM.

Kevin