On Monday, December 26, 2011, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 08:13:19PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, December 12, 2011, Thomas Abraham wrote: > > > > A device node pointer is added to generic pm domain structure to associate > > > the domain with a node in the device tree. > > > That sounds fine except for one thing: PM domains are not devices, so adding > > "device node" pointers to them is kind of confusing. Perhaps there should be > > something like struct dt_node, representing a more general device tree node? > > There's struct of_node which is exactly that, though practically > speaking you need a device if you're going to bind automatically to > something from the device tree in a sensible fashion and there is actual > hardware under there so a device does make some sense. > > This is in part compatibility with the existing Exynos code which uses > devices to probe the domains for non-DT systems. Well, that's not a general case, though. It doesn't feel approporiate to use a "device node" pointer for something that's not based on struct device, at least not a generic level, so I wonder if there's a different way. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |