From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] Add "Simple" / Renesas Bus State Controller Driver Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:15:33 +0100 Message-ID: <6261300.I132f1jLqB@wuerfel> References: <1416859808-18503-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1416859808-18503-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Laurent Pinchart , Ulrich Hecht , Simon Horman , Magnus Damm , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ulf Hansson , Grant Likely , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Monday 24 November 2014 21:10:05 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > As this minimal BSC driver isn't hardware-specific at all, I'm wondering > if there's a simpler way to do this? > - Should the driver be renamed to "simple-bus", and match "simple-bus"? > - Should this be moved to core code, without an explicit driver for > "simple-bus"? I.e. should the driver core just enable runtime PM for > all devices not bound to a driver, as they may represent buses with > child devices that do rely on runtime PM? > > Thanks for your comments and suggestions! My understanding of simple-bus is that it's something that does not have any power-management capabilities, and I'd rather not add clocks or interrupts to it. What I think makes more sense is to have a bus driver for it in drivers/bus, remove the "simple-bus" compatibility value and have the driver take care of registering the power domain and probing the child devices using of_platform_populate on itself. Arnd