On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 01:20:11PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote: > On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Whilst I'm sympathetic to people working to enable DRM, I think this is > > the right solution to the problem. The transition from simplefb to DRM > > shouldn't break display for a bunch of kernel revisions whilst the code is > > in flux. > I would go further. The kernel behaviour has changed, and we have to > deal with platforms that assume the old behaviour. That means either > defaulting to leaving enabled regulators/clocks alone unless there is > a flag in the DT saying they can be power managed, or black listing > platforms that are known to depend on the regulator being on. For regulators there is essentially a flag in DT already - the regulators should not be described in DT if the OS isn't supposed to be managing them. > Updating the device tree must not be required to get the kernel to > boot, but it is valid to require a DT upgrade to get better > performance (battery life) out of the platform. This has got to be a blacklist then, and it seems like we've got to fix simplefb to actually support managing the resources it's using. The current plan does not seem at all sensible - we're talking about adding hacks in every subsystem that provides resources and bodging DTs in order to work around simplefb.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
