Hi Paul, On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 02:03:04, Paul Walmsley wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2012, Bedia, Vaibhav wrote: > > > I am looking at adding PM support for AM335x based on l-o/master. > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm.c has the following comment: > > > > /* > > * In the case of DT, the PMIC and SR initialization will be done using > > * a completely different mechanism. > > * Disable this part if a DT blob is available. > > */ > > if (of_have_populated_dt()) > > return 0; > > > > Basic DT support for AM335x is already in mainline so this check causes > > various PM related inits and also the registration of the suspend ops to be > > skipped. > > > > I tried searching the list archives for any discussion on this but could not > > find anything. Can someone shed some light on the how the device tree is to > > be used for PMIC and SR initialization. > > > > Any objections to moving the suspend ops registration before the DT blob check? > > Moving the registration makes sense to me, based on a quick look. > > IMHO, a better approach for this code would be to reverse the sense of > that of_have_populated_dt() test, and specifically wrap the parts that are > going to be changed by DT. The rationale here is that only certain steps > need to be skipped, so those should probably be skipped explicitly rather > than skipping the whole function. > I checked the different inits which get skipped right now. I think _init_voltages() should not really be dependent on the DT check to cover the cases wherein the voltages are controlled using a regular regulator driver. However right now I don't know what approach to take here. For now I have sent an RFC patch [1] with just the movement of suspend ops. Regards, Vaibhav B. [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=134260813520149&w=2 -- 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
