lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/9] ARM: OMAP2+: SmartReflex: move the driver specific macros in include/linux/power
From
Hi!

On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Trilok Soni <tsoni@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> Hi Benoit,
>
>
>>
>> The main motivation is that it's a driver and thus does not have
>> anything to do inside mach-omap2.
>
>
> Right, I understood that. mach-omap2 is not suitable for full fledged
> drivers.

The initial motivation is to provide a generic framework for this type
of drivers, by cleaning up the current OMAP code and by providing as
much generic code as possible.

Cf. the patch sets I submitted before this very one:
- the SR code clean-up [1], which is needed to make the code ready for
the integration of new features,
- the SR class support [2], which is needed for new SR classes to be
implemented.

From the maintainer point of view it made more sense to move the code
before cleaning it up and so it should happen before [1] and [2].
The result is that [1] and [2] will need to be rebased when the move
is accepted and merged in.

[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=133055488908132&w=2
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=133163445926544&w=2

>>
>> Where will you put that otherwise?
>
>
> Couple of suggestions:
>
> drivers/platform/omap/avs?
> drivers/misc/omap/avs?
>
> I prefer first one.
Those paths are for OMAP specific code and not for a generic framework.

>>
>> IIRC, David Brownell was referring to the rule of three for such case.
>> Meaning that it worth having a generic fmwk when at least three
>> different drivers are doing the same kind of things.

Do OMAP v1 and OMAP v2 implementations count as 2 drivers? ;-)
More seriously, the OMAP code for SmartReflex is far from complete in
mainline. There is a plan to provide the following features:
- OMAP v1 IP,
- OMAP v2 IP,
- class 1.5,
- class 3,
- class 3.5,
- and more support for the upcoming chipsets.

Also I am sure that other vendors could step in and have their
platform specific code converted to the new fwk as well.

>
>
> Yes, I remember that rule, but that's not stopping us to create a fwk, may
> be others will rise once they see the framework and contribute
> if their h/w architecture requirements are not addressed?
>

Thanks,
Jean

>
> ---Trilok Soni
>
> --
> --
> Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-04-05 11:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans