On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Second, I want to see less users of pm_clk_add_notifier() since it's >> not the proper/long-term way of how to assign PM domain pointers to a >> device. Instead that shall be done at device registration point. In >> your case while parsing the DT nodes and adding devices onto to their >> buses. > > but these are devices which do not really have a controllable power > domain, they just have controllable clocks. > >> Yes, I understand that it will requires quite some work to adopt to >> this behaviour - but that how it shall be done. >> >> Finally, an important note, you don't need to use PM domains for these >> devices at all and thus you don't need to fix what I propose. Instead >> you only have to implement the runtime PM callbacks for each driver >> and manage the clocks from there. That is probably also a easier >> solution. > > But that would mean I repeat the same code in all drivers to do a > clk_get/prepare/enable/disable/unprepare of the same "core" and "iface" > clocks. I thought we have clock_ops.c just to avoid that (atleast up > until we have a better way of doing it) > And there are atleast a few architecture which have used it to avoid the > duplication across all drivers (omap1/davinci/sh/keystone) At least for arm/shmobile, we're planning to move away from this, cfr. http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-sh/msg41114.html Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds -- 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
