Messages in this thread | | | From | Ulf Hansson <> | Date | Mon, 11 Sep 2023 13:28:08 +0200 | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: SoC/genpd driver updates for v6.6 |
| |
On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 09:52, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > Hi Ulf, > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 1:39 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 11:33, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote: > > > If I may suggest something, I would call this "pmdomain" instead of > > > "genpd". I don't think that /drivers/power/ is a particularly > > > suitable location for it, because it doesn't really have much to do > > > with power supplies and more to do with device PM. > > > > "pmdomain" is probably giving a reasonable good hint of what goes on > > in this subsystem. This works fine for me, thanks! > > Sounds nice! > All of this lives in <linux/pm_domain.h> (with underscore?) anyway, > and "PM Domains" is the usual naming, as it covers both Power and > Clock Domains. > > However, although I am quite familiar with genpd, I am still wondering > what is the meaning of the "generic" part in the name? And what is a > non-generic PM Domain?
I guess generic here means "works for most cases".
There are certainly a bunch of other "non-generic", like the ACPI, pm_clk, OMAP2, etc.
Maybe some of them could be converted to genpd, but that's another story.
> > > > Also, I would move drivers/base/power/domain.c to drivers/pmdomain/ > > > (and rename it to something like core.c), because it would be a better > > > location for that fiile IMO. > > > > We could certainly do that, let's discuss it a bit more. > > > > Although, at this point I want to focus on the genpd providers, as to > > release some of the burden from arm-soc maintainers. > > > > > I can also handle future pull requests for this if that's fine with everyone. > > > > Thanks a lot for your offer! However, if a re-route is preferred (I > > think not?), this is probably better suited via arm-soc, as most > > changes are going to be arm platform specific. > > Which brings me to the final question: what is the upstream path > for changes to drivers/genpd/*/ (or whatever it's gonna be called)? > Before, we sent PRs to (arm-)soc. Do you expect us to send them to > you? There's usually quite some interaction between drivers/soc/reneas/ > and drivers/genpd/renesas (and there are DT binding definitions), > but not more than with e.g. drivers/clk/renesas/.
I would be happy to pick this up and funnel this via my new genpd tree. As long as it's coupled with changes affecting "genpd providers", of course.
I can certainly also collect patches directly from the mailing-list/patch-tracker too. Whatever works for you the best. Of course, in that case I need your acks before I pick up the relevant patches.
If we need "immutable" branches, let's discuss that on a case by case basis.
> > And I just realized you moved the code and Makefiles to drivers/genpd/, > but not the Kconfig symbols and logic, which still lives under > drivers/soc/. So resolving that (and the name) is something that > should be resolved sooner rather than later...
In regards to the name, I am relying on input from Linus to make a final decision before I send a patch. In regards to this, I have also started working on a documentation patch for genpd. It needs some more polishing before I can send it though.
When it comes to the Kconfig move, I will send out a series for it, this week.
[...]
Kind regards Uffe
| |