On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Rob Herring <robherri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:34 PM, Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 10/03/2014 05:57 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> A simple-framebuffer node represents a framebuffer setup by the firmware /
>>>> bootloader. Such a framebuffer may have a number of clocks in use, add a
>>>> property to communicate this to the OS.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Mike Turquette <mturque...@linaro.org>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> -Added Reviewed-by: Mike Turquette <mturque...@linaro.org>
>>>> Changes in v3:
>>>> -Updated description to make clear simplefb deals with more then just
>>>> memory
>>>
>>> NAK. "Fixing" the description is not what I meant and does not address
>>> my concerns. Currently, simplefb is configuration data. It is
>>> auxiliary data about how a chunk of memory is used. Using it or not
>>> has no side effects on the hardware setup, but you are changing that
>>> aspect. You are mixing in a hardware description that is simply
>>> inaccurate.
>>
>> Memory is hardware too, what simplefb is is best seen as a virtual device,
>> and
>> even virtual devices have hardware resources they need, such as a chunk of
>> memory,
>> which the kernel should not touch other then use it as a framebuffer,
>> likewise
>> on some systems the virtual device needs clocks to keep running.
>>
>>> The kernel has made the decision to turn off "unused" clocks. If its
>>> determination of what is unused is wrong, then it is not a problem to
>>> fix in DT.
>>
>> No, it is up to DT to tell the kernel what clocks are used, that is how it
>> works
>> for any other device. I don't understand why some people keep insisting
>> simplefb
>> for some reason is o so very very special, because it is not special, it
>> needs
>> resources, and it needs to tell the kernel about this or bad things happen.
>
> No, the DT describes the connections of clocks from h/w block to h/w
> block. Their use is implied by the connection.
>
> And yes, as the other thread mentioned DT is more than just hardware
> information. However, what you are adding IS hardware information and
> clearly has a place somewhere else. And adding anything which is not
> hardware description gets much more scrutiny.
>
>> More over it is a bit late to start making objections now. This has already
>> been
>> discussed to death for weeks now, and every argument against this patch has
>> already
>> been countered multiple times (including the one you are making now). Feel
>> free to
>> read the entire thread in the archives under the subject:
>> "[PATCH 4/4] simplefb: add clock handling code"
>
> You are on v2 and I hardly see any consensus on the v1 thread. Others
> have made suggestions which I would agree with and you've basically
> ignored them.
>
>> At one point in time we need to stop bickering and make a decision, that
>> time has
>> come now, so please lets get this discussion over with and merge this, so
>> that
>> we can all move on and spend out time in a more productive manner.
>
> Not an effective argument to get things merged.
This is another way to solve the problem.....
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 3:34 PM, jonsm...@gmail.com <jonsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Does the clock and regulator cleanup happen before drivers can load
>> off from initrd? I didn't think it did but I might be wrong.
>
> Yes
>
> drivers/base/power/domain.c:late_initcall(genpd_poweroff_unused);
> drivers/clk/clk.c:late_initcall_sync(clk_disable_unused);
> drivers/regulator/core.c:late_initcall_sync(regulator_init_complete);
What do you think about putting these calls onto an ioctl somewhere
and then eliminating the late_initcall(..)? A tiny user space app
could then hit that ioctl after all of the loadable device drivers are
loaded. Add the command to make this ioctl call to busybox or udev.
After all, it is not fatal if these calls aren't made, all they do is
save power. Add a link in rc.d or somewhere similar to run this app at
the appropriate time.
Switching these over to an ioctl allows a window to be opened for
device specific driver loading before the clock/regulator clean up
happens.
Now all of this mess of protecting clocks and regulator disappears.
Instead get the device specific drivers written and loaded, then run
the cleanup app which hits the ioctl(). All of the correct
clock/regulators will be claimed and then this clean code will do the
right thing.
>From my perspective it appears that this cleanup is being done too
early which then triggers a need to protect things from cleanup.
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> Rob
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "linux-sunxi" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
Jon Smirl
jonsm...@gmail.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
