lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/4] regulator: qcom: Rework to single platform device
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 05:46:25PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 03/04/15 16:30, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 11:35:43AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:

> > Dependency resolution isn't anything new, I'm not sure why you think
> > this is related to of_parse_cb()? Open coding does exactly the same

> I was just using of_parse_cb to indicate the difference from
> of_regulator_match(). I could have said "between your design and my design".

Please do things like that - it makes things harder to follow if people
throw in random unrelated terms for things.

> > of. There was a proposal quite recently from someone at Samsung Poland
> > to do something more coreish and basically split registrations in two,
> > one half registering the things needed for each resource and then a
> > second half which runs once the required resources are registered.
> > Pushing that along might be best, it's a more general approach. The
> > component stuff Russell did has some similarities here.

> Ah you're talking about the res track stuff[1]? That patchset seemed to
> be doing a *lot* of different stuff where probe defer was just a part of
> it. Frmo what I recall that still operates on the device level, where
> here we want to be able to say that a particular regulator needs another
> resource, but it's ok to register it's sibling regulator within this
> device because that regulator doesn't need anything. Are you saying you
> want the restrack stuff to work at the regulator level? If we went that
> way we could do the same thing in the clock framework and get rid of the
> orphan list and rely on the notifications from restrack to figure out
> when a clock resource becomes fully available.

Yes, that's it. It's not quite the same thing as registering individual
resources and there are definite issues to be addressed but I think it's
a promising approach for addressing the deferred probe problem in a more
elegant way.
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-05 12:01    [W:0.037 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site