>>-----Original Message----- >>From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] >>Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 11:56 PM >>To: Gopinath, Thara >>Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; paul@xxxxxxxxx; Cousson, Benoit; Sripathy, Vishwanath; Sawant, Anand >>Subject: Re: [PM-SR] [PATCH] OMAP: PM: Remove the usage of vdd id's. >> >>Thara Gopinath <thara@xxxxxx> writes: >> >>> This patch removes the usage of vdd and sr id alltogether. >>> This is achieved by introducing a separte voltage domain per >>> VDD and hooking this up with the voltage and smartreflex >>> internal info structure. Any user of voltage or smartreflex layer >>> should call into omap_volt_domain_get to get the voltage >>> domain handle and make use of this to call into the various >>> exported API's. >> >>Great, I'm glad to see those gone. >> >>Minor comment on naming: >> >>In current code, we currently have >> >> struct clockdomain *clkdm; >> struct powerdomain *pwrdm; >> >>so, for consistency, I'd suggest using >> >> struct voltagedomain *voltdm; >> >>instead of this: >> >> struct omap_volt_domain *volt_domain; >> >> >>Also, it looks like your 'struct omap_vdd_info' is the real struct that >>represents a voltage domain. >> >>Maybe you're planning this already, but I suggest you get rid of >>omap_vdd_info and just move all that stuff into the voltagedomain. >>Again, that will probably create a diff with a ton of renames, so this >>should just be part of your V2 series. Are you sure? Because omap_vdd_info contains all the internal details about the voltage domains. Do we really want to expose it? IMHO omap_vdd_info should remain as internal structure instead of exposing it out. Regards Thara -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
