[PATCH v6 0/8] power: add power sequence library

[Vaibhav Hiremath]

On Monday 29 August 2016 04:40 PM, Peter Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 04:53:35PM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 04:02:48PM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>>> On Monday 15 August 2016 02:43 PM, Peter Chen wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> This is a follow-up for my last power sequence framework patch set [1].
>>>> According to Rob Herring and Ulf Hansson's comments[2], I use a generic
>>>> power sequence library for parsing the power sequence elements on DT,
>>>> and implement generic power sequence on library. The host driver
>>>> can allocate power sequence instance, and calls pwrseq APIs accordingly.
>>>>
>>>> In future, if there are special power sequence requirements, the special
>>>> power sequence library can be created.
>>>>
>>>> This patch set is tested on i.mx6 sabresx evk using a dts change, I use
>>>> two hot-plug devices to simulate this use case, the related binding
>>>> change is updated at patch [1/6], The udoo board changes were tested
>>>> using my last power sequence patch set.[3]
>>>>
>>>> Except for hard-wired MMC and USB devices, I find the USB ULPI PHY also
>>>> need to power on itself before it can be found by ULPI bus.
>>>>
>>>> [1]http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg142755.html
>>>> [2]http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg143106.html
>>>> [3]http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-usb/msg142815.html
>>> (Please ignore my response on V2)
>>>
>>> Sorry being so late in the discussion...
>>>
>>> If I am not missing anything, then I am afraid to say that the
>>> generic library
>>> implementation in this patch series is not going to solve many of
>>> the custom
>>> requirement of power on, off, etc...
>>> I know you mentioned about adding another library when we come
>>> across such platforms, but should we not keep provision (or easy
>>> hooks/path)
>>> to enable that ?
>>>
>>> Let me bring in the use case I am dealing with,
>>>
>>>
>>>                                Host
>>>                                 |
>>>                                 V
>>>                             USB port
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>                                 |
>>>                                 V
>>>                        USB HUB device (May need custom on/off seq)
>>>                                 |
>>>                                 V
>>>                =============================
>>>               |                             |
>>>               V                             V
>>>           Device-1                       Device-2
>>> (Needs special power               (Needs special power
>>>   on/off sequence.                   on/off sequence.
>>>   Also may need custom               Also, may need custom
>>>   sequence for                       sequence for
>>>   suspend/resume)                    suspend/resume)
>>>
>>>
>>> Note: Both Devices are connected to HUB via HSIC and may differ
>>>            in terms of functionality, features they support.
>>>
>>> In the above case, both Device-1 and Device-2, need separate
>>> power on/off sequence. So generic library currently we have in this
>>> patch series is not going to satisfy the need here.
>>>
>>> I looked at all 6 revisions of this patch-series, went through the
>>> review comments, and looked at MMC power sequence code;
>>> what I can say here is, we need something similar to
>>> MMC power sequence here, where every device can have its own
>>> power sequence (if needed).
>>>
>>> I know Rob is not in favor of creating platform device for
>>> this, and I understand his comment.
>>> If not platform device, but atleast we need mechanism to
>>> connect each device back to its of_node and its respective
>>> driver/library fns. For example, the Devices may support different
>>> boot modes, and platform driver needs to make sure that
>>> the right sequence is followed for booting.
>>>
>>> Peter, My apologies for taking you back again on this series.
>>> I am OK, if you wish to address this in incremental addition,
>>> but my point is, we know that the current generic way is not
>>> enough for us, so I think we should try to fix it in initial phase only.
>>>
>> Rob, it seems generic power sequence can't cover all cases.
>> Without information from DT, we can't know which power sequence
>> for which device.
>>
> Vaibhav, do you agree that I create pwrseq library list using postcore_initcall
> for each library, and choose pwrseq library according to compatible
> string first, if there is no compatible string for this library, just
> use generic pwrseq library.
>

Lets hear from MMC folks. Ulf, do you agree on approach
for pwr seq ??


With above approach, I kind of agree on it, but I have couple
of comments,

  - How DTS looks like now ?? Can you put example here ?
  - Should we merge MMC power sequence in next series ?
    We also can take this as an incremental change, to avoid further
    delay :)
  - Lets also add suspend/resume callback to struct pwrseq


There are some comments I have on the patches,
I will respond directly on respective patches, it would be useful
for next series.


And Sorry for delayed response.

-- 
Thanks,
Vaibhav