Messages in this thread | | | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Date | Mon, 11 Sep 2023 15:06:04 +0200 | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: SoC/genpd driver updates for v6.6 |
| |
Hi Ulf,
On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 2:07 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 13:48, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 1:28 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 09:52, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > > 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! > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > At least for Renesas SoCs, every new SoC comes with a DT binding > > definitions file under include/dt-bindings/power/, to be shared by genpd > > driver and DTS (the same is true for clocks). So PRs will work best. > > Good point! And Neil pointed out this too [1]. > > I am going to host an immutable branch for the dt bindings that you > can pull in. Would that be a better option for you?
Yes, that would work for me, too. Can I conclude you prefer to take patches over PRs?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |