Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: SoC/genpd driver updates for v6.6

[Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>]

On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 15:06, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Ulf,
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 2:07 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 13:48, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 1:28 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 09:52, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 1:39 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 11:33, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > If I may suggest something, I would call this "pmdomain" instead of
> > > > > > > "genpd".  I don't think that /drivers/power/ is a particularly
> > > > > > > suitable location for it, because it doesn't really have much to do
> > > > > > > with power supplies and more to do with device PM.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "pmdomain" is probably giving a reasonable good hint of what goes on
> > > > > > in this subsystem. This works fine for me, thanks!
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I would move drivers/base/power/domain.c to drivers/pmdomain/
> > > > > > > (and rename it to something like core.c), because it would be a better
> > > > > > > location for that fiile IMO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We could certainly do that, let's discuss it a bit more.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Although, at this point I want to focus on the genpd providers, as to
> > > > > > release some of the burden from arm-soc maintainers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can also handle future pull requests for this if that's fine with everyone.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks a lot for your offer! However, if a re-route is preferred (I
> > > > > > think not?), this is probably better suited via arm-soc, as most
> > > > > > changes are going to be arm platform specific.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which brings me to the final question: what is the upstream path
> > > > > for changes to drivers/genpd/*/ (or whatever it's gonna be called)?
> > > > > Before, we sent PRs to (arm-)soc.  Do you expect us to send them to
> > > > > you? There's usually quite some interaction between drivers/soc/reneas/
> > > > > and drivers/genpd/renesas (and there are DT binding definitions),
> > > > > but not more than with e.g. drivers/clk/renesas/.
> > > >
> > > > I would be happy to pick this up and funnel this via my new genpd
> > > > tree. As long as it's coupled with changes affecting "genpd
> > > > providers", of course.
> > > >
> > > > I can certainly also collect patches directly from the
> > > > mailing-list/patch-tracker too. Whatever works for you the best. Of
> > > > course, in that case I need your acks before I pick up the relevant
> > > > patches.
> > > >
> > > > If we need "immutable" branches, let's discuss that on a case by case basis.
> > >
> > > At least for Renesas SoCs, every new SoC comes with a DT binding
> > > definitions file under include/dt-bindings/power/, to be shared by genpd
> > > driver and DTS (the same is true for clocks).  So PRs will work best.
> >
> > Good point! And Neil pointed out this too [1].
> >
> > I am going to host an immutable branch for the dt bindings that you
> > can pull in. Would that be a better option for you?
>
> Yes, that would work for me, too.
> Can I conclude you prefer to take patches over PRs?

In general, yes. But, I am fine with both options, as long as it works
for you too!

Kind regards
Uffe