[PATCH 02/24] drivercore: Bind/unbind power domain on probe/remove

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:27:45PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 02:53:26 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On 10 June 2014 14:11, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson at linaro.org> wrote:
> > >> From: Tomasz Figa <t.figa at samsung.com>
> > >>
> > >> On a number of platforms, devices are part of controllable power
> > >> domains, which need to be enabled before such devices can be accessed
> > >> and may be powered down when the device is idle to save some power.
> > >> This means that on systems that support power domain control using
> > >> generic power domains subsystem, it is necessary to add device to its
> > >> power domain before binding a driver to it and remove it from its power
> > >> domain after its driver is unbound to make sure that an unused device
> > >> does not affect power domain state.
> > >>
> > >> Since this is not limited to particular busses and specific
> > >> archs/platforms,
> > >
> > > Actually, this isn't correrct.  It is limited to the platforms that
> > > use Device Trees now.
> > 
> > Correct, we should update the commit message/docs.
> > 
> > >
> > > Moreover, it is not consistent with the way we add devices to the ACPI PM
> > > domain, which is the ACPI counterpart of this.
> > 
> > I am not sure why you think consistency for ACPI is important here.
> > ACPI PM will still be able to handle it's domain/device registering as
> > before. There are even other pm_domains that don't use genpd which
> > need to handle this themselves.
> 
> My point is that doing things like that in different places for different
> firmware interfaces is confusing and likely to lead to coding mistakes in
> the future.
> 
> > Or are you saying that you prefer bus notifiers in favour of making
> > use of the driver core for this matter?
> 
> Well, please grep for acpi_dev_pm_attach() and see where it is done.
> Surely not in drivers/base/dd.c.  Also I'm not sure why you're talking
> about bus notifiers in this context.
> 
> > Shouldn't the driver core handle most of the common things for a device
> > driver?
> 
> Common, yes.  Platform-specific, no.
> 
> > Let's compare how the pinctrls are being managed in the driver core, for
> > example.
> 
> pinctrl has Device Trees support only at the moment (as far as firmware
> interfaces go) and quite frankly I'm not sure if/how we'll need to change
> it to cover ACPI as well.
> 
> But for power domains, please keep that stuff away from dd.c.  That is,
> unless Greg specifically disagrees with me and decides to apply this
> patch regardless. :-)

Nope, no disagreement from me toward you at all here, keep up the good
work :)

greg k-h