Hi,
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 03:51:56PM -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Alexander Aring <alex.aring@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > This patch adds support for RPi several Power Domains and enable support
> > to enable the USB Power Domain when it's not enabled before.
> >
> > This patch based on Eric Anholt's patch to support Power Domains. He had
> > an issue about -EPROBE_DEFER inside the power domain subsystem, this
> > issue was solved by commit <311fa6a> ("PM / Domains: Return -EPROBE_DEFER
> > if we fail to init or turn-on domain").
>
> [...]
>
> > +#define RPI_POWER_DOMAIN(_domain, _name) \
> > + [_domain] = { \
>
> Using _domain as the array index is going to create a sparsely filled
> array here, wasting memory. I'm not sure what the other domain numbers
> are for other domains to know if this is a big waste or not, but it's
> still a bit wasteful.
>
> In any case, AFAICT, it doesn't look like you need to have the array
> index match the domain number anyways since you're using container_of().
>
> So I suggest just removing this array index part, and just creating them
> in arrary order. Then your _probe function isn't going to try to setup
> 3 non-enabled domains before it finally hits the USB domain.
>
The idea is here to keeping the _same_ power domains indexes for
device-tree power domain API like the RPi firmware provides it.
If somebody dumps the devicetree and see the power domain index, if
he/she does then a firmware API power domain index mapping it is wrong.
Because we need then a separate mapping:
$ARRAY_DEFINED_INDEX <-> $RPI_FIRMWARE_POWER_DOMAIN_API_INDEX
With the current solution to make a 1:1 mapping it there is no
confusing anymore, because:
$ARRAY_DEFINED_INDEX == $RPI_FIRMWARE_POWER_DOMAIN_API_INDEX
Also there exists power domains 1-10 (so far I know), 1-2 are currently
not used (and dummy-calls inside the rpi firmware implementation). So
later they should be provided anyway.
There exists a little improvement to let the for (i = 0; i < num_domains
...) start at "i = 1", the entry with index "0" will be a waste of memory
then and it's not provided by the firmware API as a power domain.
These are my arguments to keeping the current way of registering power
domains, if you still want that I should change it then I will do it or
maybe I show here some "good" arguments here to keeping this behaviour.
Please let me know. Thanks.
- Alex
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
