[...] >>> >>> * genpd_dev_pm_attach_by_id() - Attach a device to one of its PM domain. >>> * @dev: Device to attach. >>> * @index: The index of the PM domain. >>> >>> This naming and description is a bit misleading, because really it is not >>> attaching the device that is passed, but creating a new device to attach >>> a >>> PM domain to. So we should consider renaming and changing the description >>> and indicate that users need to link the device. >> >> >> I picked the name to be consistent with the existing >> genpd_dev_pm_attach(). Do you have a better suggestion? > > > Well, it appears to get more of a 'get' function and so I don't see why we > could not have 'genpd_dev_get_by_id()' and then we could have a > genpd_dev_put() as well (which would call genpd_dev_pm_detach). > >> I agree, some details is missing to the description, let me try to >> improve it. Actually, I was trying to follow existing descriptions >> from genpd_dev_pm_attach(), so perhaps that also needs a little >> update. >> >> However, do note that, neither genpd_dev_pm_attach() or >> genpd_dev_pm_attach_by_id() is supposed to be called by drivers, but >> rather only by the driver core. So description may not be so >> important. >> >> In regards to good descriptions, for sure the API added in patch9, >> dev_pm_domain_attach_by_id(), needs a good one, as this is what >> drivers should be using. > > > OK. Same appears to apply here to the description as I mentioned above. > Still seems to be more of a 'get' than an attach. So I wonder if it should > be dev_pm_domain_get_by_id() instead? Regarding "get" vs "attach", I suggest we continue to discuss that in patch 9. Whatever is decided, $subject patch needs to follow. > >>> Finally, how is a PM domain attached via calling >>> genpd_dev_pm_attach_by_id() >>> detached? >> >> >> Via the existing genpd_dev_pm_detach(), according to what I have >> described in the change log. I clarify the description in regards to >> this as well. > > > OK, so this bit is a to-do as that is not yet exposed AFAICT. I see that you > said 'although we need to extend it to cover cleanup of the earlier > registered device, via calling device_unregister().' So if we do this then > that would be fine. Let me clarify the changelog. It's not a to-do, as it's already done as part of $subject patch. So I guess we are in agreement that we don't need another API to deal with detach? Kind regards Uffe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
