Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > From: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@xxxxxxxxx> > > This patch adds support for several power domains on Raspberry Pi, > including USB (so it can be enabled even if the bootloader didn't do > it), and graphics. > > This patch is the combined work of Eric Anholt (who wrote USB support > inside of the Raspberry Pi firmware driver, and wrote the non-USB > domain support) and Alexander Aring (who separated the original USB > work out from the firmware driver). > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Aring <alex.aring@xxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > > v2: Add support for power domains other than USB, using the new > firmware interface, reword commit message (changes by Eric) [...] > +/* > + * Firmware indices for the old power domains interface. Only a few > + * of them were actually implemented. > + */ > +#define RPI_OLD_POWER_DOMAIN_USB 3 > +#define RPI_OLD_POWER_DOMAIN_V3D 10 > + Is "old" the right word here? Are there firmware versions that could be used instead? What happens when the firwmware is updated next time? [...] > + /* > + * Use the old firmware interface for USB power, so that we > + * can turn it on even if the firmware hasn't been updated. > + */ > + rpi_init_old_power_domain(rpi_domains, RPI_POWER_DOMAIN_USB, > + RPI_OLD_POWER_DOMAIN_USB, "USB"); This seems a bit restrictive. To me, it seems that determining "old" or "new" (or revision of fw interface to use) should be described in DT, not hard-coded in the power domain driver. What about an additional DT property to describe that? or possibly another cell in the domain which could be used to optionally set old/legacy. Kevin -- 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
