Message ID | 20230829213441.310655-1-ulf.hansson@linaro.org |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] ARM: SoC/genpd driver updates for v6.6 | expand |
Hi Ulf, 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! Sounds nice! All of this lives in <linux/pm_domain.h> (with underscore?) anyway, and "PM Domains" is the usual naming, as it covers both Power and Clock Domains. However, although I am quite familiar with genpd, I am still wondering what is the meaning of the "generic" part in the name? And what is a non-generic PM Domain? > > 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/. And I just realized you moved the code and Makefiles to drivers/genpd/, but not the Kconfig symbols and logic, which still lives under drivers/soc/. So resolving that (and the name) is something that should be resolved sooner rather than later... Thanks! Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
Hi Ulf, 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. > > And I just realized you moved the code and Makefiles to drivers/genpd/, > > but not the Kconfig symbols and logic, which still lives under > > drivers/soc/. So resolving that (and the name) is something that > > should be resolved sooner rather than later... > > In regards to the name, I am relying on input from Linus to make a > final decision before I send a patch. In regards to this, I have also > started working on a documentation patch for genpd. It needs some more > polishing before I can send it though. > > When it comes to the Kconfig move, I will send out a series for it, this week. OK. Thanks! Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 13:48, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > Hi Ulf, > > 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? [...] Kind regards Uffe [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4303c141-30df-4a2b-aba7-f11a98db9941@linaro.org/
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? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
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
On Mon, Sep 11, 2023, at 13:28, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 09:52, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: >> >> And I just realized you moved the code and Makefiles to drivers/genpd/, >> but not the Kconfig symbols and logic, which still lives under >> drivers/soc/. So resolving that (and the name) is something that >> should be resolved sooner rather than later... > > In regards to the name, I am relying on input from Linus to make a > final decision before I send a patch. In regards to this, I have also > started working on a documentation patch for genpd. It needs some more > polishing before I can send it though. I'm fairly sure that Linus was instead waiting for you to send a patch or pull request for the rename. Please just pick a name that you like and that Linus hasn't already objected to and send it so the rename makes it into -rc2 for others to base on. If anyone has objections to the new name, you'll find out about it then, but I think we trust your judgement here. Arnd
On Tue, 12 Sept 2023 at 15:58, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2023, at 13:28, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 09:52, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > >> > >> And I just realized you moved the code and Makefiles to drivers/genpd/, > >> but not the Kconfig symbols and logic, which still lives under > >> drivers/soc/. So resolving that (and the name) is something that > >> should be resolved sooner rather than later... > > > > In regards to the name, I am relying on input from Linus to make a > > final decision before I send a patch. In regards to this, I have also > > started working on a documentation patch for genpd. It needs some more > > polishing before I can send it though. > > I'm fairly sure that Linus was instead waiting for you to send > a patch or pull request for the rename. Please just pick a name > that you like and that Linus hasn't already objected to and send > it so the rename makes it into -rc2 for others to base on. > > If anyone has objections to the new name, you'll find out about > it then, but I think we trust your judgement here. > > Arnd Alright. One can interpret silence differently. :-) Anyway, I have followed your advice and submitted a patch. I have queued up a couple of patches for "genpd" already, but it's still easy to rebase them after a rename, so not a big deal for me at the moment. Kind regards Uffe