Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> This patch introduces generic code to perform power domain look-up using
> device tree and automatically bind devices to their power domains.
> Generic device tree binding is introduced to specify power domains of
> devices in their device tree nodes.
>
> Backwards compatibility with legacy Samsung-specific power domain
> bindings is provided, but for now the new code is not compiled when
> CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is selected to avoid collision with legacy code. This
> will change as soon as Exynos power domain code gets converted to use
> the generic framework in further patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx>
The approach and binding both look good to me, other than a few minor
nits on comments and question on the locking below...
[...]
> @@ -2177,3 +2181,297 @@ void pm_genpd_init(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd,
> list_add(&genpd->gpd_list_node, &gpd_list);
> mutex_unlock(&gpd_list_lock);
> }
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF
> +/*
> + * DEVICE TREE BASED POWER DOMAIN PROVIDERS
why all caps?
[...]
> +/* See of_genpd_get_from_provider(). */
> +static struct generic_pm_domain *__of_genpd_get_from_provider(
> + struct of_phandle_args *genpdspec)
> +{
> + struct of_genpd_provider *provider;
> + struct generic_pm_domain *genpd = ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
> +
> + /* Check if we have such a provider in our array */
I think you want to take the mutex here...
> + list_for_each_entry(provider, &of_genpd_providers, link) {
> + if (provider->node == genpdspec->np)
> + genpd = provider->xlate(genpdspec, provider->data);
> + if (!IS_ERR(genpd))
> + break;
> + }
...and release it here, right?
[...]
> +/*
> + * DEVICE<->DOMAIN BINDING USING DEVICE TREE LOOK-UP
hmm, more yelling?
Otherwise, looks good to me.
Kevin
--
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
