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

[Vaibhav Hiremath]

On Monday 19 September 2016 01:16 PM, Peter Chen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:09:10PM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>>
>> On Friday 09 September 2016 02:17 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>> We had an agreement that keep mmc's pwrseq framework unchanging.
>>>>>>> Unless Ulf and rob both agree to change.
>>>>>> Why 2 separate approach for same problem ?
>>>>>> And I see this as possible duplication of code/functionality :)
>>>>> How the new kernel compatibles old dts? If we do not need to
>>>>> consider this problem, the mmc can try to use power sequence library
>>>>> too in future.
>>>> I think we should attempt to get both MMC and USB power seq
>>>> come on one agreement, so that it can be reused.
>>> That would be nice. Although, to do that you would have to allow some
>>> DT bindings to be deprecated in the new generic power seq bindings, as
>>> otherwise you would break existing DTBs.
>>>
>>> I guess that is what Rob was objecting to!?
>> yeah, thats right.
>>
>> So lets adopt similar implementation for USB as well instead of
>> library, but keeping MMC untouched as of now.
>>
>> What I am trying to propose here is,
>>
>> Lets have power-sequence framework (similar to V1 of this series),
>> with,
>>
>> pwrseq: Core framework for power sequence.
>> pwrseq_generic/simple: for all generic control, like reset and clock
>> pwrseq_emmc: probably duplication of existing code - the idea
>>                            here is, all future code should be using this new
>>                            binding, so that we can deprecate the
>> drivers/mmc/core/pwrseq
>> pwrseq_arche: The usecase which I am dealing with today, which is more
>>                           complex in nature.
>>
>> Then the respective drivers can add their drivers (if needed) based on
>> complexity.
>>
>> comments ??
> The key point here is DT maintainer (Rob) doesn't agree with adding new node
> for power sequence at dts.
>

Hmmm.
We haven't heard from Rob lately especially after introduction of complex
usecases. I hope he would revisit on above proposal.

Thanks,
Vaibhav