On 11/02/16 10:37, Ulf Hansson wrote: > [...] > >>>> >>>> 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? Yes it will. Ok, let's stick with struct device for now. Cheers Jon -- 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
