From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> To: "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com> Cc: "alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com" <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>, "mazziesaccount@gmail.com" <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>, "mturquette@baylibre.com" <mturquette@baylibre.com>, "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, "sre@kernel.org" <sre@kernel.org>, "linus.walleij@linaro.org" <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, "sboyd@kernel.org" <sboyd@kernel.org>, "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>, "broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>, "Mutanen, Mikko" <Mikko.Mutanen@fi.rohmeurope.com>, "a.zummo@towertech.it" <a.zummo@towertech.it>, "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>linux Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/8] mfd: bd70528: Support ROHM bd70528 PMIC - core Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 09:21:53 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190404082153.GP6830@dell> (raw) In-Reply-To: <70a8a87a403eb2ab8f0aad2a26456de8a162f363.camel@fi.rohmeurope.com> On Thu, 04 Apr 2019, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > Hello Alexandre, > > On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 09:56 +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 04/04/2019 10:24:49+0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 07:54:52AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Thu, 04 Apr 2019, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > > > > > > > > > Actually, now that I thik of it the right way to do this would > > > > > have > > > > > been the function pointer in parent data as was done in > > > > > original patch > > > > > set. HW-colleagues tend to re-use HW blocks, and we like to re- > > > > > use our > > > > > drivers. If the next PMIC from ROHM uses same RTC block but > > > > > does not > > > > > provide watchdog - then it is cleanest solution to fall back to > > > > > function pointer and leave it to NULL when there is no WDT or > > > > > when WDT > > > > > is unused. Another option is to export dummy function - which > > > > > is not so > > > > > nice. > > > > > > > > I think the converse is true. > > > > > > > > Pointers to functions outside of a subsystem API context are > > > > generally > > > > horrible. It's much nicer to call a function which can be easily > > > > stubbed out in a header file based on a Kconfig option. It's how > > > > most > > > > kernel APIs work. > > > > > > I hate to admit but I see your point. This nicely solves any issues > > > in > > > syncronizing the startup for driver providing function pointer and > > > for > > > driver using it. > > > > > > > Wouldn't it be easier to register the watchdog driver as part of the > > RTC > > driver? > > > > As I see it, the wdt is just a glorified RTC alarm. > > Do you suggest me to put all the stuff now placed in > drivers/watchdog/bd70528_wdt.c into rtc driver? It would be doable - > but I'd rather kept the WDT independent module so that it can be left > out of config if WDT needs not to be used. And same with RTC. Also, re- > use of RTC driver in HW which does not include WDT is easier when WDT > is a separate module. To me it looks much cleaner to have the WDT as > own module than polluting the RTC driver with config ifdefs. I haven't looked at the code, but I agree with this in principle. I'm a firm believer of having functionality in the most appropriate subsystem. IMHO, if a device can be neatly split 9/10 it should be. > But from HW perspective you are correct. The WDT in BD70528 seems to be > kind of RTC alarm which shuts of the PMIC if triggered. > > Br, > Matti Vaittinen -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org> To: "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com> Cc: "alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com" <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "robh+dt@kernel.org" <robh+dt@kernel.org>, "mazziesaccount@gmail.com" <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>, "mturquette@baylibre.com" <mturquette@baylibre.com>, "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>, "sre@kernel.org" <sre@kernel.org>, "linus.walleij@linaro.org" <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, "sboyd@kernel.org" <sboyd@kernel.org>, "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>, "broonie@kernel.org" <broonie@kernel.org>, "Mutanen, Mikko" <Mikko.Mutanen@fi.rohmeurope.com>, "a.zummo@towertech.it" <a.zummo@towertech.it>, "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>, "linux@roeck-us.net" <linux@roeck-us.net>, "linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org>, "lgirdwood@gmail.com" <lgirdwood@gmail.com>, "bgolaszewski@baylibre.com" <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>, "wim@linux-watchdog.org" <wim@linux-watchdog.org>, "linux-clk@vger.kernel.org" <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org>, "Haikola, Heikki" <Heikki.Haikola@fi.rohmeurope.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/8] mfd: bd70528: Support ROHM bd70528 PMIC - core Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 09:21:53 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20190404082153.GP6830@dell> (raw) In-Reply-To: <70a8a87a403eb2ab8f0aad2a26456de8a162f363.camel@fi.rohmeurope.com> On Thu, 04 Apr 2019, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > Hello Alexandre, > > On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 09:56 +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 04/04/2019 10:24:49+0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 07:54:52AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote: > > > > On Thu, 04 Apr 2019, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > > > > > > > > > Actually, now that I thik of it the right way to do this would > > > > > have > > > > > been the function pointer in parent data as was done in > > > > > original patch > > > > > set. HW-colleagues tend to re-use HW blocks, and we like to re- > > > > > use our > > > > > drivers. If the next PMIC from ROHM uses same RTC block but > > > > > does not > > > > > provide watchdog - then it is cleanest solution to fall back to > > > > > function pointer and leave it to NULL when there is no WDT or > > > > > when WDT > > > > > is unused. Another option is to export dummy function - which > > > > > is not so > > > > > nice. > > > > > > > > I think the converse is true. > > > > > > > > Pointers to functions outside of a subsystem API context are > > > > generally > > > > horrible. It's much nicer to call a function which can be easily > > > > stubbed out in a header file based on a Kconfig option. It's how > > > > most > > > > kernel APIs work. > > > > > > I hate to admit but I see your point. This nicely solves any issues > > > in > > > syncronizing the startup for driver providing function pointer and > > > for > > > driver using it. > > > > > > > Wouldn't it be easier to register the watchdog driver as part of the > > RTC > > driver? > > > > As I see it, the wdt is just a glorified RTC alarm. > > Do you suggest me to put all the stuff now placed in > drivers/watchdog/bd70528_wdt.c into rtc driver? It would be doable - > but I'd rather kept the WDT independent module so that it can be left > out of config if WDT needs not to be used. And same with RTC. Also, re- > use of RTC driver in HW which does not include WDT is easier when WDT > is a separate module. To me it looks much cleaner to have the WDT as > own module than polluting the RTC driver with config ifdefs. I haven't looked at the code, but I agree with this in principle. I'm a firm believer of having functionality in the most appropriate subsystem. IMHO, if a device can be neatly split 9/10 it should be. > But from HW perspective you are correct. The WDT in BD70528 seems to be > kind of RTC alarm which shuts of the PMIC if triggered. > > Br, > Matti Vaittinen -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Linaro Services Technical Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-04 8:21 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-03-25 12:04 [PATCH v11 0/8] support ROHM BD70528 PMIC Matti Vaittinen 2019-03-25 12:04 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-03-25 12:04 ` [PATCH v11 1/8] mfd: regulator: clk: split rohm-bd718x7.h Matti Vaittinen 2019-03-25 12:04 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-04-03 6:19 ` Lee Jones 2019-04-03 6:19 ` Lee Jones 2019-03-25 12:05 ` [PATCH v11 2/8] mfd: bd70528: Support ROHM bd70528 PMIC - core Matti Vaittinen 2019-03-25 12:05 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-04-03 7:31 ` Lee Jones 2019-04-03 7:31 ` Lee Jones 2019-04-03 8:47 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-04-03 8:47 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-04-03 9:30 ` Lee Jones 2019-04-03 9:30 ` Lee Jones 2019-04-03 10:10 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-04-03 10:10 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-04-03 11:25 ` Lee Jones 2019-04-03 11:25 ` Lee Jones 2019-04-03 11:45 ` Vaittinen, Matti 2019-04-03 11:45 ` Vaittinen, Matti 2019-04-04 2:52 ` Lee Jones 2019-04-04 2:52 ` Lee Jones 2019-04-04 5:57 ` Vaittinen, Matti 2019-04-04 5:57 ` Vaittinen, Matti 2019-04-04 6:54 ` Lee Jones 2019-04-04 6:54 ` Lee Jones 2019-04-04 7:24 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-04-04 7:24 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-04-04 7:56 ` Alexandre Belloni 2019-04-04 7:56 ` Alexandre Belloni 2019-04-04 8:10 ` Vaittinen, Matti 2019-04-04 8:10 ` Vaittinen, Matti 2019-04-04 8:21 ` Lee Jones [this message] 2019-04-04 8:21 ` Lee Jones 2019-04-04 8:06 ` Lee Jones 2019-04-04 8:06 ` Lee Jones 2019-03-25 12:05 ` [PATCH v11 3/8] clk: bd718x7: Support ROHM BD70528 clk block Matti Vaittinen 2019-03-25 12:05 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-03-25 12:05 ` [PATCH v11 4/8] dt-bindings: mfd: Document first ROHM BD70528 bindings Matti Vaittinen 2019-03-25 12:05 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-04-03 7:34 ` Lee Jones 2019-04-03 7:34 ` Lee Jones 2019-04-03 9:04 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-04-03 9:04 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-03-25 12:06 ` [PATCH v11 5/8] gpio: Initial support for ROHM bd70528 GPIO block Matti Vaittinen 2019-03-25 12:06 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-03-25 12:06 ` [PATCH v11 6/8] rtc: bd70528: Initial support for ROHM bd70528 RTC Matti Vaittinen 2019-03-25 12:06 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-03-25 17:04 ` Alexandre Belloni 2019-03-25 17:04 ` Alexandre Belloni 2019-03-26 13:51 ` Vaittinen, Matti 2019-03-26 13:51 ` Vaittinen, Matti 2019-03-26 14:05 ` Alexandre Belloni 2019-03-26 14:05 ` Alexandre Belloni 2019-03-25 12:06 ` [PATCH v11 7/8] power: supply: Initial support for ROHM BD70528 PMIC charger block Matti Vaittinen 2019-03-25 12:06 ` Matti Vaittinen 2019-03-25 12:07 ` [PATCH v11 8/8] watchdog: bd70528: Initial support for ROHM BD70528 watchdog block Matti Vaittinen 2019-03-25 12:07 ` Matti Vaittinen
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20190404082153.GP6830@dell \ --to=lee.jones@linaro.org \ --cc=Matti.Vaittinen@fi.rohmeurope.com \ --cc=Mikko.Mutanen@fi.rohmeurope.com \ --cc=a.zummo@towertech.it \ --cc=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \ --cc=broonie@kernel.org \ --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \ --cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \ --cc=mazziesaccount@gmail.com \ --cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \ --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \ --cc=sboyd@kernel.org \ --cc=sre@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.