Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] firmware: scpi: add device power domain support using genpd | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Date | Wed, 15 Jun 2016 14:44:06 +0100 |
| |
On 15/06/16 14:29, Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] > >> >>>> +static const struct of_device_id scpi_power_domain_ids[] = { >>>> + { .compatible = "arm,scpi-power-domains", }, >>>> + { /* sentinel */ } >>>> +}; >>> >>> >>> Actually I think you shouldn't implement this a standalone driver and >>> thus you can remove this compatible. >>> >> >> While I tend to agree, I did this to keep it aligned with other SCPI >> users(clocks, sensors,.. for example). >> >> I assume remove compatible just from driver ? IMO, it doesn't make sense >> to add power domain provider without a compatible. >> >>> Instead, I think it's better if you let the arm_scpi driver to also >>> initialize the PM domain. >>> >> >> OK, I can do that. >> >>> If you still want the PM domain code to be maintained in a separate >>> file, just provide a header file which declares an >>> "scpi_pm_domain_init()" function (and a stub when not supported), >>> which the arm_scpi driver should call during ->probe(). >>> >> >> I am fine with that, just that it deviates from the approach taken in >> other subsystems as I mentioned above. > > If DT maintainers are happy with you adding a compatible for this, > don't let me stop you from implementing this as standalone driver. >
I assume compatibles are always preferred even if they are not used to make it future proof and may be that's why the binding was accepted. We need to have a node to specify phandle in the consumers anyways, it's always better to have separate node for each of the SCPI users/provider (like clock, sensors, power domains) instead of pointing all to the one SCPI node. Again that's just my view.
> I have no strong opinions about it, so perhaps it's then better to not > deviate from other cases!? >
OK, thanks. I will respin with Kconfig changes and retain the file in drivers/firmware for now.
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |