On 18 June 2014 22:14, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Kumar Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Jun 18, 2014, at 10:53 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@xxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> +Paul Walmsley >>>>> >>>>> Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> This series adds a regulator driver for the Resource Power Manager found in >>>>>> Qualcomm 8660, 8960 and 8064 based devices. >>>>>> >>>>>> The RPM driver exposes resources to its child devices, that can be accessed to >>>>>> implement drivers for the regulators, clocks and bus frequency control that's >>>>>> owned by the RPM in these devices. >>>>>> >>>>>> Changes since v2: >>>>>> - Fix copy-paste error in dt binding >>>>>> - Correct incomplete move from mfd to soc >>>>>> - Correct const mistake in regulator driver >>>>>> >>>>>> Changes since v1: >>>>>> - Moved rpm driver to drivers/soc >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure I follow the motivation for having this under drivers/soc? >>>>> >>>> Hi Kevin, >>>> >>>> I've made the argument that to me this is conceptually a black box >>>> handling regulators, clocks and other stuff; hence similar to a PMIC, >>>> which would fit nicely into drivers/mfd. >>>> >>>> I still think this is the case and now that I look back I didn't get >>>> any pushback from Lee Jones so maybe the move was premature? >>> >>> Yes, IMO, the move was premature, but hopefully the drivers/soc folks >>> can chime in an clarify the criteria for inclusion there. >>> >>> Kevin >> >> I dont agree, I think having this in drivers/soc means that we can >> clearly go through drivers/soc in the future and look for patterns >> across SoCs that should be re-factored. > > I don't believe that was the goal in creating drivers/soc. > >> Where MFD seems like its become the new drivers misc. > > Well, I don't think that drivers/soc wants to be the new drivers/misc > either. ;) > > Thinking more about what this RPM driver actually does, and since you > mentioned patterns across SoCs, it seems to me the RPM driver bascially > just doing the IPC. > > So, rather than MFD or drivers/soc, it seems to me that it should be > implmented as a controller in the new common mailbox framwork[1] being > worked on by Jassi Brar (added to Cc.) > > IIUC, RPM is actually only doing one-way IPC (it only exposes a write() > interface to clients) so it seems like a rather simple implementation of > a mailbox controller. > Yup, qcom_rpm.c is exactly what drivers/mailbox/ is meant for. Agreed the driver is _very_ SoC specific (Qualcomm) but so is any other mailbox driver in my knowledge. So either we move all to drivers/mailbox/ or empty that out into drivers/soc/ I tend to lean towards the first option. Thanks -Jassi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
