On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 01:53:28PM +0530, Thomas Abraham wrote:
> Hi Sylwester,
>
> On 3 January 2012 03:49, Sylwester Nawrocki <snjw23@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > thank you for clarifying.
> >
> > On 01/02/2012 03:14 AM, Thomas Abraham wrote:
> >>
> >> The following is a snippet from the dts file used for testing.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> lcd0:power-domain-lcd0 {
> >> compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-pd";
> >> reg = <0x10023C00 0x10>;
> >> };
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> fimd0:display-controller {
> >> compatible = "samsung,exynos4-fimd";
> >> [...]
> >> pd = <&lcd0>;
> >> };
> >>
> >> The fimd (display controller) driver would then do the following.
> >>
> >> parp = of_get_property(pdev->dev.of_node, "pd", NULL);
> >> pd_np = of_find_node_by_phandle(be32_to_cpup(parp));
> >> pm_genpd_of_add_device(pd_np, &pdev->dev);
> >
> > Sounds interesting. Currently it's platform code that adds devices to
> > a corresponding power domain. But doing it at drivers might be more
> > convenient for avoiding device/driver/power domain registration
> > synchronization issues, especially that knowledge about power domain
> > existence may be contained directly in DT description, not needing
> > drivers to carry platform specific data.
> >
> > BTW, I have a feeling that "samsung" is a bit longish prefix for the bindings.
> > Didn't you initially consider "sec" for instance ? Probably it is already
> > too late for changing that though.
>
> I had not thought of "sec". I agree that "sec" would have been better
> as it is shorter and represents bindings specific to Samsung
> Electronics. But it is not intuitive at the same time. If there is
> greater consensus on using "sec", we could try and request for a
> change but looks difficult to get through.
Don't bother. 'samsung,' is fine.
g.
--
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
