Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 15/12/15 15:55, Eric Anholt wrote: >> Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> On 15/12/15 13:40, Eric Anholt wrote: >>>> 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) >>>> >>>> v3: Restructure as a builtin driver, and drop >>>> of_genpd_add_provider_onecell error handling to avoid >>>> pm_genpd_exit() dependency until that API can be settled. Clean >>>> up copyright header, add missing ISP initialization, and fix typo >>>> in transposer's name. >>>> >>>> arch/arm/mach-bcm/Kconfig | 10 ++ >>>> arch/arm/mach-bcm/Makefile | 1 + >>>> arch/arm/mach-bcm/raspberrypi-power.c | 247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> include/dt-bindings/arm/raspberrypi-power.h | 41 +++++ >>>> 4 files changed, 299 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-bcm/raspberrypi-power.c >>> >>> What motivated the location of this power domain driver in >>> arch/arm/mach-bcm? Should not we have this in drivers/power/ or >>> somewhere in drivers/ at the very least? >> >> ls stronly suggests that power contains drivers for power supplies and >> batteries, not power domains. There are 6 power domain drivers in >> arch/arm, 3 in drivers/clk, and 3 in drivers/soc. > > If we ever have to support a different architecture which happens to use > a similar power domain, then we want it to be in a location which makes > it easy for sharing it in the first place. As it stands today, it does > not seem useful to me to have this code in arch/arm/mach-bcm/ at all. > > Maybe there is room from a drivers/power/domains/ of some kind? The great thing about git is that moving code is easy, even after it's first committed. The subsystem maintainer didn't comment on the code's location in v1 or v2, and I think they probably have the final say on that. Whatever they want, where there is currently a genpd driver, is fine with me.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
