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

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Ulf,

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 1:28 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sept 2023 at 09:52, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2023 at 1:39 PM Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 11:33, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> 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

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds