On 11/02/16 10:28, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 11 February 2016 at 11:13, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 11/02/16 09:57, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> On 11 February 2016 at 10:13, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 10/02/16 18:25, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>>>> Perhaps there's a way to allow the generic PM domain to control this >>>>>>> by itself. If we for example used the struct device corresponding to >>>>>>> the powergate driver, genpd could use it to distinguish between >>>>>>> various instances of genpd structs..!? Maybe it would simplify the way >>>>>>> to deal with removing domains? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, that would be ideal. However, would have require changing >>>>>> genpd_init()? I am not sure how genpd would be able to access the device >>>>>> struct for the powergate driver because we don't provide this via any >>>>>> API I am aware of? And I am guessing that you don't wish to expose the >>>>>> gpd_list to the world either. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there is an easy way, I am open to it, but looking at it today, I am >>>>>> not sure I see a simple way in which we could add a new API to do this. >>>>>> However, may be I am missing something! >>>>> >>>>> If we add a new __pm_genpd_init() API, that could require a struct >>>>> device to be provided. That API will thus invoke the existing >>>>> pm_genpd_init() but also deal with the extra things needed here. >>>>> >>>>> I would also allow such an API to return an error code. >>>>> >>>>> Correspondingly, pm_genpd_remove() could be required to be provided >>>>> with a struct device. >>>>> >>>>> Existing users of pm_genpd_init() can then convert to >>>>> __pm_genpd_init() whenever suitable. >>>>> >>>>> Of course, another option is just to add new member in the genpd >>>>> struct for the struct *device. The caller of pm_genpd_init() could >>>>> check it, but allow it to be NULL. Although, the pm_genpd_remove() API >>>>> would require that pointer to the struct device to be set... >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>> >>>> Yes, sounds good. May be it is simpler just to add a new member and let >>>> the platform genpd driver handle it. >>>> >>>> I am wondering if in addition to pm_genpd_remove(), we then just have a >>>> function called pm_genpd_remove_tail(), which allows you to pass the >>>> struct device pointer and will remove the last pm-domain from the >>>> gpd_list and return the genpd pointer if successful. Internally, it will >>>> call pm_genpd_remove(). It seems to me that if there are nested >>>> pm-domains, then we probably want to remove them starting from the tail >>>> as opposed to the head. >>>> >>>> How does that sound? >>> >>> 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? > > If I understand correctly, you agree to try with the most simple > approach first and thus without providing too much flexibility. > > Anyway, I am looking forward to review your next version of the patchset! :-) So one snag I hit with this, is that in order to remove a pm-domain, I first need to check if it is a subdomain of any other domains and if so remove it as a subdomain first. Before, this was simple because I called pm_genpd_remove_subdomain if the domain had a parent, and then called pm_genpd_remove(). With the proposal we have discussed, I no longer have any knowledge of whether the pm-domain is a subdomain or not because pm_genpd_remove() would remove the tail and then return it. So this means that I now need to handle the removal of the subdomain within pm_genpd_remove(), which is ok, but creates more changes as I need to parse the slave_links list, etc. I am wondering if it would be better to add a simple function called pm_genpd_list_get_tail(struct device *dev) that would return the last pm-domain register for a given device and then simply call pm_genpd_remove_subdomain() (if needed) and pm_genpd_remove()? Let me know what you think. 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
