Gopinath, Thara had written, on 09/16/2010 05:40 AM, the following:
-----Original Message-----
From: linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org
[mailto:linux-omap-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Kevin
Hilman
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 3:27 AM
To: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] OMAP: OPP: twl/tps: Introduce TWL/TPS-specific code
From: Paul Walmsley <p...@pwsan.com>
The OPP layer code should be independent of the PMIC,
introduce the TWL/TPS-specific code out to its own file.
Hello Kevin,
I have been using this code for a while now. I really do not think wee need a
separate
file for implementing the vsel to voltage in (uV) and vice versa formulas.
Today only voltage
This split introduces a PMIC level abstraction already. Do you have a
suggestion which file it should go to? It is definitely not part of
opp.c, not part of other existing twl files as well. the job of this
file was to introduce conversion routines which can be used by any layer
(voltage layer if need be - it used to be srf and smartreflex before)..
in fact one of your voltage layer patches introduces capability for 6030
as well
http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=128213020927919&w=2
layer is interested in these conversions. Voltage layer has a structure that
can be populated with
the information required from the PMIC. We only need to add two more function
pointers to this structure.
> This info can then be passed from the actual PMIC driver file. This
will make it much
more simpler for OMAP4 where we have different formulas between different
revisions of PMIC. Also
in the omap voltage code we will no longer have to hard code
omap_twl_vsel_to_uv and omap_twl_uv_to_vsel.
I think the problem is with the voltage layer (which has not been posted
upstream) which is using hard coded function pointer. What the patchset
should have done is to introduce function pointers registration from
twl_tps.c to voltage layer and voltage layer should ideally been using
function pointers by itself.
> So please consider dropping this patch from this series.
I think I disagree - rationale for having this separated as a pmic
specific file is still sound, only the implementation of the future
framework should have changed (it should be using function pointers
instead of hardcoded function names). in fact I can add additional
suggestion for the voltage layer: the pmic selection should be done from
a board file - This will allow voltage layer to handle numerous PMICs
and combination of PMICs controlling various domains as well.. the only
neat way to handle it is ofcourse using function pointers.
PS: Suggestion
- please fix your mailer to round off for 70/80 chars..
- might be good to point folks to rfc patchset for voltage layer to give
context.
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
