[...] >>> >>> Why not make pm_genpd_remove() to behave as you describe for >>> pm_genpd_remove_tail()? >>> That's probably the only sane way to remove genpds anyhow!? >> >> Simply to offer flexibility. I could see that for some devices that have >> no dependencies between pm-domains and have a static list of pm-domains, >> they can simply call pm_genpd_remove() for a given pm-domain. However, >> that said, I can envision a case where a single pm-domain would be >> removed by itself and so may be there is no benefit? > > By the way, do you think that instead of passing the struct device * to > pm_genpd_remove(), we should just have a void *dev_id in the same way > the request_irq()/free_irq() work? In other words, it would allow people > to use the struct device or struct device_node, etc? Hmm. Do you think that would make a difference for the power controller drivers? I am thinking that genpd might perhaps benefit from being able to use the device pointer for other purposes as well!? Giving a void *, will prevent that, won't it? Kind regards Uffe -- 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
