On 25 May 2018 at 13:07, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 25/05/18 11:45, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > ... > >>> Right, but this case still seems like an error. My understanding is that >>> only drivers will use this API directly and it will not be used by the >>> device driver core (unlike dev_pm_domain_attach), so if anyone calls this >>> attempting to attach another PM domain when one is already attached, they >>> are doing something wrong. >> >> >> [...] >> >> You may be right! >> >> What I was thinking of is whether multiple PM domains may be optional >> in some cases, but instead a PM domain have already been attached by >> dev_pm_domain_attach(), prior the driver starts to probe. >> >> Then, assuming we return an error for this case, that means the caller >> then need to check the dev->pm_domain pointer, prior calling >> dev_pm_domain_attach_by_id(). Wouldn't it? Perhaps that is more clear >> though? > > > IMO the driver should know whether is needs multiple power-domains or not > and if it needs multiple then it should just call > dev_pm_domain_attach_by_id() N times without needing to checking > dev->pm_domain first. If it fails then either the PM domain core did > something wrong or power-domains are missing from DT, but either way there > is an error, so let it fail. Right, sounds reasonable! 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
