On Tue, 28 Jul 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Monday, July 27, 2015 10:29:34 PM Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, July 27, 2015 05:24:13 PM Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 27 Jul 2015, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 04:27:33PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > > > > FAO Stephen Boyd, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stephen, can you, please, have a look into patch 8 regarding to clock name > > > > > > > > matching and other stuff Lee asked? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Patch 8: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Can you review the clock implementation please? It looks > > > > > > > fragile to me as it relies heavily on device names constructed > > > > > > > of MFD cell names and IDA numbers cat'ed together!" > > > > > > > > > > > > Lee, can you suggest an alternative then? > > > > > > > > > > > > Why we are doing it like this is that number of different LPSS devices > > > > > > changes from SoC to SoC. In addition to that the device (called "slice") > > > > > > might have iDMA block or not. > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the drivers in question (pxa2xx-spi, i2c-designware and 8250_dw) > > > > > > use standard clk framework to request their clocks the Linux device must > > > > > > have clock registered which matches the device in advance. > > > > > > > > > > > > Because we add the host controller device dynamically (from the MFD > > > > > > driver) based on how many devices are actually present, we need somehow > > > > > > predict what would be the correct name and instance number for that > > > > > > device to get the clock for it. That's the reason we use IDA here along > > > > > > with the cell name (or driver name). > > > > > > > > > > I'm sure there are perfectly viable reasons for you doing this. And I > > > > > don't know the CCF well enough to know whether it's the best idea or > > > > > not, or else I would have made a suggestion rather than waiting all > > > > > this time. > > > > > > > > > > It's for this reason that I needed Mike (now Stephen) to take a look > > > > > and give me either an Ack, to say it's the best solution, or to > > > > > provide a better alternative. > > > > > > > > > > Until that happens, I'm stuck! > > > > > > > > Well, what if we had no one at hand to review that code? Would that mean it > > > > would not be applicable forever? > > > > > > No, but that's not the case is it? > > > > > > I don't understand why Mike and Stephen aren't helping! > > > > I'll wait until tomorrow and if we haven't heard anything I'll make a > > decision. > > OK, thanks! > > BTW, I don't have the time to review every single patch using ACPI > or one of the PM frameworks. If people who use them make mistakes, > it is their burden to fix those mistakes when they show up in testing. > > What's happening here is that Andy and Mika are taking the responsibility > for fixing the new code if it turns out to be buggy and so it's their > problem if it happens to be broken. > > And you can still revert commits that introduce bugs as a last resort. I'm fine with that in principle. My issue here was that it looks wrong to me. I just don't know enough about the inner workings of the CCF to be able to say that for sure, or to provide a suitable alternative. I think, probably the correct thing to do is to have an accompanying clock driver, but who knows (I guess Stephen and Mike to, but are seemingly unwilling to help). -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
