Re: [PATCH 0/3] Qualcomm Resource Power Manager driver
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:15:24AM +0300, Stanimir Varbanov wrote: > > Lately I've been working on rpm, rpm-smd, smem, smd, smsm, smp2p > > patches for mainline. > > It could be argued that smd is a bus and should go in drivers/bus, but > > for the rest I fear that we just created drivers/soc/qcom as another > > dumping ground for things; a "Qualcomm specific drivers/mfd". > Do we have some obstacles to not use a "common mailbox framework" for > this IPC (shared memory) communication. It looks that it fits very well > with our needs for this rpm-regulator and future submitting of smd driver? Jassi (CCed) has been working on just such a thing. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [PATCH 0/3] Qualcomm Resource Power Manager driver
Hi Bjorn, Thanks for the patches. > Lately I've been working on rpm, rpm-smd, smem, smd, smsm, smp2p > patches for mainline. > It could be argued that smd is a bus and should go in drivers/bus, but > for the rest I fear that we just created drivers/soc/qcom as another > dumping ground for things; a "Qualcomm specific drivers/mfd". Do we have some obstacles to not use a "common mailbox framework" for this IPC (shared memory) communication. It looks that it fits very well with our needs for this rpm-regulator and future submitting of smd driver? -- regards, Stan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/3] Qualcomm Resource Power Manager driver
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: > It is the purpose so that as we see common patterns between either > drivers/soc/ we can refactor in the future. However, we need to all > a little time for those patterns to emerge rather than shoe horning in > drivers into places that don’t make sense. Sounds reasonable, I'll move it for v2. > >> >> If I move the rpm driver, are there any conclusion to where I should >> move the dt binding documentation? > > devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom > include/dt-bindings/soc Thanks. Regards, Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/3] Qualcomm Resource Power Manager driver
On May 28, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> On May 27, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Bjorn Andersson >> wrote: >> >>> This series adds a regulator driver for the Resource Power Manager found in >>> Qualcomm 8660, 8960 and 8064 based devices. >>> >>> The RPM driver exposes resources to its child devices, that can be accessed >>> to >>> implement drivers for the regulators, clocks and bus frequency control >>> that's >>> owned by the RPM in these devices. >> >> Rather than adding yet another mfd driver, how about we put this in >> drivers/soc/qcom as a much better location for the low level rpm code. Some >> code already merged in arm-soc for creation of drivers/soc/qcom/ > > Hi Kumar, > > I do see rpm as somewhat equivalent to a pmic and that was why I > followed suite and put it in mfd, but I can of course move it if you > prefer. > > > Lately I've been working on rpm, rpm-smd, smem, smd, smsm, smp2p > patches for mainline. > It could be argued that smd is a bus and should go in drivers/bus, but > for the rest I fear that we just created drivers/soc/qcom as another > dumping ground for things; a "Qualcomm specific drivers/mfd". > > But maybe that is the purpose of it ;) It is the purpose so that as we see common patterns between either drivers/soc/ we can refactor in the future. However, we need to all a little time for those patterns to emerge rather than shoe horning in drivers into places that don’t make sense. > > If I move the rpm driver, are there any conclusion to where I should > move the dt binding documentation? devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom include/dt-bindings/soc > > Regards, > Bjorn - k -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/3] Qualcomm Resource Power Manager driver
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On May 27, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Bjorn Andersson > wrote: > >> This series adds a regulator driver for the Resource Power Manager found in >> Qualcomm 8660, 8960 and 8064 based devices. >> >> The RPM driver exposes resources to its child devices, that can be accessed >> to >> implement drivers for the regulators, clocks and bus frequency control that's >> owned by the RPM in these devices. > > Rather than adding yet another mfd driver, how about we put this in > drivers/soc/qcom as a much better location for the low level rpm code. Some > code already merged in arm-soc for creation of drivers/soc/qcom/ Hi Kumar, I do see rpm as somewhat equivalent to a pmic and that was why I followed suite and put it in mfd, but I can of course move it if you prefer. Lately I've been working on rpm, rpm-smd, smem, smd, smsm, smp2p patches for mainline. It could be argued that smd is a bus and should go in drivers/bus, but for the rest I fear that we just created drivers/soc/qcom as another dumping ground for things; a "Qualcomm specific drivers/mfd". But maybe that is the purpose of it ;) If I move the rpm driver, are there any conclusion to where I should move the dt binding documentation? Regards, Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 0/3] Qualcomm Resource Power Manager driver
On May 27, 2014, at 12:28 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > This series adds a regulator driver for the Resource Power Manager found in > Qualcomm 8660, 8960 and 8064 based devices. > > The RPM driver exposes resources to its child devices, that can be accessed to > implement drivers for the regulators, clocks and bus frequency control that's > owned by the RPM in these devices. Rather than adding yet another mfd driver, how about we put this in drivers/soc/qcom as a much better location for the low level rpm code. Some code already merged in arm-soc for creation of drivers/soc/qcom/ > > Bjorn Andersson (3): > mfd: devicetree: bindings: Add Qualcomm RPM DT binding > mfd: qcom-rpm: Driver for the Qualcomm RPM > regulator: qcom-rpm: Regulator driver for the Qualcomm RPM > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,rpm.txt | 283 +++ > drivers/mfd/Kconfig| 15 + > drivers/mfd/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/mfd/qcom_rpm.c | 554 ++ > drivers/regulator/Kconfig | 12 + > drivers/regulator/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c | 852 + > include/dt-bindings/mfd/qcom_rpm.h | 148 > include/linux/mfd/qcom_rpm.h | 13 + > 9 files changed, 1879 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/qcom,rpm.txt > create mode 100644 drivers/mfd/qcom_rpm.c > create mode 100644 drivers/regulator/qcom_rpm-regulator.c > create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/mfd/qcom_rpm.h > create mode 100644 include/linux/mfd/qcom_rpm.h - k -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
