On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:09:10PM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote: > > > On Friday 09 September 2016 02:17 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >[...] > > > >>>>>We had an agreement that keep mmc's pwrseq framework unchanging. > >>>>>Unless Ulf and rob both agree to change. > >>>>Why 2 separate approach for same problem ? > >>>>And I see this as possible duplication of code/functionality :) > >>>How the new kernel compatibles old dts? If we do not need to > >>>consider this problem, the mmc can try to use power sequence library > >>>too in future. > >> > >>I think we should attempt to get both MMC and USB power seq > >>come on one agreement, so that it can be reused. > >That would be nice. Although, to do that you would have to allow some > >DT bindings to be deprecated in the new generic power seq bindings, as > >otherwise you would break existing DTBs. > > > >I guess that is what Rob was objecting to!? > > yeah, thats right. > > So lets adopt similar implementation for USB as well instead of > library, but keeping MMC untouched as of now. > > What I am trying to propose here is, > > Lets have power-sequence framework (similar to V1 of this series), > with, > > pwrseq: Core framework for power sequence. > pwrseq_generic/simple: for all generic control, like reset and clock > pwrseq_emmc: probably duplication of existing code - the idea > here is, all future code should be using this new > binding, so that we can deprecate the > drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq > pwrseq_arche: The usecase which I am dealing with today, which is more > complex in nature. > > Then the respective drivers can add their drivers (if needed) based on > complexity. > > comments ?? The key point here is DT maintainer (Rob) doesn't agree with adding new node for power sequence at dts. -- Best Regards, Peter Chen -- 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
