> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Walmsley [mailto:paul@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 7:26 AM > To: Santosh Shilimkar > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > Rajendra Nayak; Benoit Cousson > Subject: RE: [PATCH 01/11] OMAP4: PRCM: add OMAP4-specific > accessor/mutatorfunctions > > On Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > > > One more possible road block of removing the direct register access > > from PM code is DEVICE PRM module. Even with this clean-up for DEVCIE > > PRM related registers. I guess we still need to use the lowest level > > APIs. > > To clarify my comments, I'm not talking about replacing omap4_prm_*() with > omap4_prminst_*() for the device PRM cases. I agree that is not > desirable. What I'd like to see is for the middle-level PM code, such as > pm*.c, to call functions that describe what they are actually trying to do > at a higher level, rather than writing to registers directly. > > I'll take the PRM_VOLTSETUP* registers as a rough example. This may be a > bad example since we probably don't write to this directly from pm*.c any > more, but the basic idea is, rather than writing some mystery value to a > register from the pm*.c code, we should write something like: > > int omap4_prm_regulator_set_ramp_up_duration(u32 ns, u8 starting_pwrst); > > which would then take care of computing the prescaler and count values > appropriately given the current sys_clk and writing them to the register > or returning an error if something is wrong. > > The long-term goal is to be able to reuse as much PM code as possible > between all of the different OMAP2+ platforms. > Thanks for clarification. We are fully aligned here. Regards, Santosh -- 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
