[v3,2/9] PM / Domains: Add generic OF-based PM domain look-up

From: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>

This patch introduces generic code to perform PM domain look-up using
device tree and automatically bind devices to their PM domains.

Generic device tree bindings are introduced to specify PM domains of
devices in their device tree nodes.

Backwards compatibility with legacy Samsung-specific PM domain bindings
is provided, but for now the new code is not compiled when
CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is selected to avoid collision with legacy code.
This will change as soon as the Exynos PM domain code gets converted to
use the generic framework in further patch.

Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
[Ulf:Added attach|detach functions, fixed review comments]
Tested-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt     |  49 ++++
 drivers/base/power/domain.c                        | 291 +++++++++++++++++++++
 include/linux/pm_domain.h                          |  57 ++++
 kernel/power/Kconfig                               |   4 +
 4 files changed, 401 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt

On Thursday, September 04, 2014 03:52:29 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> From: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> 
> This patch introduces generic code to perform PM domain look-up using
> device tree and automatically bind devices to their PM domains.
> 
> Generic device tree bindings are introduced to specify PM domains of
> devices in their device tree nodes.
> 
> Backwards compatibility with legacy Samsung-specific PM domain bindings
> is provided, but for now the new code is not compiled when
> CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is selected to avoid collision with legacy code.
> This will change as soon as the Exynos PM domain code gets converted to
> use the generic framework in further patch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
> [Ulf:Added attach|detach functions, fixed review comments]
> Tested-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>

However, for this one (and consequently the rest) I need an ACK from the
people who maintain the bindings.

> ---
>  .../devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt     |  49 ++++
>  drivers/base/power/domain.c                        | 291 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/pm_domain.h                          |  57 ++++
>  kernel/power/Kconfig                               |   4 +
>  4 files changed, 401 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..98c1667
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
> +* Generic PM domains
> +
> +System on chip designs are often divided into multiple PM domains that can be
> +used for power gating of selected IP blocks for power saving by reduced leakage
> +current.
> +
> +This device tree binding can be used to bind PM domain consumer devices with
> +their PM domains provided by PM domain providers. A PM domain provider can be
> +represented by any node in the device tree and can provide one or more PM
> +domains. A consumer node can refer to the provider by a phandle and a set of
> +phandle arguments (so called PM domain specifiers) of length specified by the
> +#power-domain-cells property in the PM domain provider node.
> +
> +==PM domain providers==
> +
> +Required properties:
> + - #power-domain-cells : Number of cells in a PM domain specifier;
> +   Typically 0 for nodes representing a single PM domain and 1 for nodes
> +   providing multiple PM domains (e.g. power controllers), but can be any value
> +   as specified by device tree binding documentation of particular provider.
> +
> +Example:
> +
> +	power: power-controller@12340000 {
> +		compatible = "foo,power-controller";
> +		reg = <0x12340000 0x1000>;
> +		#power-domain-cells = <1>;
> +	};
> +
> +The node above defines a power controller that is a PM domain provider and
> +expects one cell as its phandle argument.
> +
> +==PM domain consumers==
> +
> +Required properties:
> + - power-domains : A phandle and PM domain specifier as defined by bindings of
> +                   the power controller specified by phandle.
> +
> +Example:
> +
> +	leaky-device@12350000 {
> +		compatible = "foo,i-leak-current";
> +		reg = <0x12350000 0x1000>;
> +		power-domains = <&power 0>;
> +	};
> +
> +The node above defines a typical PM domain consumer device, which is located
> +inside a PM domain with index 0 of a power controller represented by a node
> +with the label "power".
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> index eee55c1..ed42651 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>  
>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
>  #include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>  #include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>  #include <linux/pm_domain.h>
>  #include <linux/pm_qos.h>
> @@ -2189,3 +2190,293 @@ void pm_genpd_init(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd,
>  	list_add(&genpd->gpd_list_node, &gpd_list);
>  	mutex_unlock(&gpd_list_lock);
>  }
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF
> +/*
> + * Device Tree based PM domain providers.
> + *
> + * The code below implements generic device tree based PM domain providers that
> + * bind device tree nodes with generic PM domains registered in the system.
> + *
> + * Any driver that registers generic PM domains and needs to support binding of
> + * devices to these domains is supposed to register a PM domain provider, which
> + * maps a PM domain specifier retrieved from the device tree to a PM domain.
> + *
> + * Two simple mapping functions have been provided for convenience:
> + *  - __of_genpd_xlate_simple() for 1:1 device tree node to PM domain mapping.
> + *  - __of_genpd_xlate_onecell() for mapping of multiple PM domains per node by
> + *    index.
> + */
> +
> +/**
> + * struct of_genpd_provider - PM domain provider registration structure
> + * @link: Entry in global list of PM domain providers
> + * @node: Pointer to device tree node of PM domain provider
> + * @xlate: Provider-specific xlate callback mapping a set of specifier cells
> + *         into a PM domain.
> + * @data: context pointer to be passed into @xlate callback
> + */
> +struct of_genpd_provider {
> +	struct list_head link;
> +	struct device_node *node;
> +	genpd_xlate_t xlate;
> +	void *data;
> +};
> +
> +/* List of registered PM domain providers. */
> +static LIST_HEAD(of_genpd_providers);
> +/* Mutex to protect the list above. */
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(of_genpd_mutex);
> +
> +/**
> + * __of_genpd_xlate_simple() - Xlate function for direct node-domain mapping
> + * @genpdspec: OF phandle args to map into a PM domain
> + * @data: xlate function private data - pointer to struct generic_pm_domain
> + *
> + * This is a generic xlate function that can be used to model PM domains that
> + * have their own device tree nodes. The private data of xlate function needs
> + * to be a valid pointer to struct generic_pm_domain.
> + */
> +struct generic_pm_domain *__of_genpd_xlate_simple(
> +					struct of_phandle_args *genpdspec,
> +					void *data)
> +{
> +	if (genpdspec->args_count != 0)
> +		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +	return data;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__of_genpd_xlate_simple);
> +
> +/**
> + * __of_genpd_xlate_onecell() - Xlate function using a single index.
> + * @genpdspec: OF phandle args to map into a PM domain
> + * @data: xlate function private data - pointer to struct genpd_onecell_data
> + *
> + * This is a generic xlate function that can be used to model simple PM domain
> + * controllers that have one device tree node and provide multiple PM domains.
> + * A single cell is used as an index into an array of PM domains specified in
> + * the genpd_onecell_data struct when registering the provider.
> + */
> +struct generic_pm_domain *__of_genpd_xlate_onecell(
> +					struct of_phandle_args *genpdspec,
> +					void *data)
> +{
> +	struct genpd_onecell_data *genpd_data = data;
> +	unsigned int idx = genpdspec->args[0];
> +
> +	if (genpdspec->args_count != 1)
> +		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +
> +	if (idx >= genpd_data->num_domains) {
> +		pr_err("%s: invalid domain index %u\n", __func__, idx);
> +		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!genpd_data->domains[idx])
> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> +
> +	return genpd_data->domains[idx];
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__of_genpd_xlate_onecell);
> +
> +/**
> + * __of_genpd_add_provider() - Register a PM domain provider for a node
> + * @np: Device node pointer associated with the PM domain provider.
> + * @xlate: Callback for decoding PM domain from phandle arguments.
> + * @data: Context pointer for @xlate callback.
> + */
> +int __of_genpd_add_provider(struct device_node *np, genpd_xlate_t xlate,
> +			void *data)
> +{
> +	struct of_genpd_provider *cp;
> +
> +	cp = kzalloc(sizeof(*cp), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!cp)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	cp->node = of_node_get(np);
> +	cp->data = data;
> +	cp->xlate = xlate;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&of_genpd_mutex);
> +	list_add(&cp->link, &of_genpd_providers);
> +	mutex_unlock(&of_genpd_mutex);
> +	pr_debug("Added domain provider from %s\n", np->full_name);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__of_genpd_add_provider);
> +
> +/**
> + * of_genpd_del_provider() - Remove a previously registered PM domain provider
> + * @np: Device node pointer associated with the PM domain provider
> + */
> +void of_genpd_del_provider(struct device_node *np)
> +{
> +	struct of_genpd_provider *cp;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&of_genpd_mutex);
> +	list_for_each_entry(cp, &of_genpd_providers, link) {
> +		if (cp->node == np) {
> +			list_del(&cp->link);
> +			of_node_put(cp->node);
> +			kfree(cp);
> +			break;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	mutex_unlock(&of_genpd_mutex);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_genpd_del_provider);
> +
> +/**
> + * of_genpd_get_from_provider() - Look-up PM domain
> + * @genpdspec: OF phandle args to use for look-up
> + *
> + * Looks for a PM domain provider under the node specified by @genpdspec and if
> + * found, uses xlate function of the provider to map phandle args to a PM
> + * domain.
> + *
> + * Returns a valid pointer to struct generic_pm_domain on success or ERR_PTR()
> + * on failure.
> + */
> +static struct generic_pm_domain *of_genpd_get_from_provider(
> +					struct of_phandle_args *genpdspec)
> +{
> +	struct generic_pm_domain *genpd = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> +	struct of_genpd_provider *provider;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&of_genpd_mutex);
> +
> +	/* Check if we have such a provider in our array */
> +	list_for_each_entry(provider, &of_genpd_providers, link) {
> +		if (provider->node == genpdspec->np)
> +			genpd = provider->xlate(genpdspec, provider->data);
> +		if (!IS_ERR(genpd))
> +			break;
> +	}
> +
> +	mutex_unlock(&of_genpd_mutex);
> +
> +	return genpd;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * genpd_dev_pm_attach - Attach a device to its PM domain using DT.
> + * @dev: Device to attach.
> + *
> + * Parse device's OF node to find a PM domain specifier. If such is found,
> + * attaches the device to retrieved pm_domain ops.
> + *
> + * Both generic and legacy Samsung-specific DT bindings are supported to keep
> + * backwards compatibility with existing DTBs.
> + *
> + * Returns 0 on successfully attached PM domain or negative error code.
> + */
> +int genpd_dev_pm_attach(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct of_phandle_args pd_args;
> +	struct generic_pm_domain *pd;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	if (!dev->of_node)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
> +	if (dev->pm_domain)
> +		return -EEXIST;
> +
> +	ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, "power-domains",
> +					"#power-domain-cells", 0, &pd_args);
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		if (ret != -ENOENT)
> +			return ret;
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Try legacy Samsung-specific bindings
> +		 * (for backwards compatibility of DT ABI)
> +		 */
> +		pd_args.args_count = 0;
> +		pd_args.np = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node,
> +						"samsung,power-domain", 0);
> +		if (!pd_args.np)
> +			return -ENOENT;
> +	}
> +
> +	pd = of_genpd_get_from_provider(&pd_args);
> +	if (IS_ERR(pd)) {
> +		dev_dbg(dev, "%s() failed to find PM domain: %ld\n",
> +			__func__, PTR_ERR(pd));
> +		of_node_put(dev->of_node);
> +		return PTR_ERR(pd);
> +	}
> +
> +	dev_dbg(dev, "adding to PM domain %s\n", pd->name);
> +
> +	while (1) {
> +		ret = pm_genpd_add_device(pd, dev);
> +		if (ret != -EAGAIN)
> +			break;
> +		cond_resched();
> +	}
> +
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to add to PM domain %s: %d",
> +			pd->name, ret);
> +		of_node_put(dev->of_node);
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(genpd_dev_pm_attach);
> +
> +/**
> + * genpd_dev_pm_detach - Detach a device from its PM domain.
> + * @dev: Device to attach.
> + *
> + * Try to locate a corresponding generic PM domain, which the device was
> + * attached to previously. If such is found, the device is detached from it.
> + *
> + * Returns 0 on successfully detached PM domain or negative error code.
> + */
> +int genpd_dev_pm_detach(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	struct generic_pm_domain *pd = NULL, *gpd;
> +	int ret = 0;
> +
> +	if (!dev->pm_domain)
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +
> +	mutex_lock(&gpd_list_lock);
> +	list_for_each_entry(gpd, &gpd_list, gpd_list_node) {
> +		if (&gpd->domain == dev->pm_domain) {
> +			pd = gpd;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +	}
> +	mutex_unlock(&gpd_list_lock);
> +
> +	if (!pd)
> +		return -ENOENT;
> +
> +	dev_dbg(dev, "removing from PM domain %s\n", pd->name);
> +
> +	while (1) {
> +		ret = pm_genpd_remove_device(pd, dev);
> +		if (ret != -EAGAIN)
> +			break;
> +		cond_resched();
> +	}
> +
> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "failed to remove from PM domain %s: %d",
> +			pd->name, ret);
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	/* Check if PM domain can be powered off after removing this device. */
> +	genpd_queue_power_off_work(pd);
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(genpd_dev_pm_detach);
> +#endif
> diff --git a/include/linux/pm_domain.h b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> index ebc4c76..b09eaa7 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
> @@ -310,4 +310,61 @@ static inline void pm_genpd_syscore_poweron(struct device *dev)
>  	pm_genpd_syscore_switch(dev, false);
>  }
>  
> +/* OF PM domain providers */
> +struct of_device_id;
> +
> +struct genpd_onecell_data {
> +	struct generic_pm_domain **domains;
> +	unsigned int num_domains;
> +};
> +
> +typedef struct generic_pm_domain *(*genpd_xlate_t)(struct of_phandle_args *args,
> +						void *data);
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF
> +int __of_genpd_add_provider(struct device_node *np, genpd_xlate_t xlate,
> +			void *data);
> +void of_genpd_del_provider(struct device_node *np);
> +
> +struct generic_pm_domain *__of_genpd_xlate_simple(
> +					struct of_phandle_args *genpdspec,
> +					void *data);
> +struct generic_pm_domain *__of_genpd_xlate_onecell(
> +					struct of_phandle_args *genpdspec,
> +					void *data);
> +
> +int genpd_dev_pm_attach(struct device *dev);
> +int genpd_dev_pm_detach(struct device *dev);
> +#else /* !CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF */
> +static inline int __of_genpd_add_provider(struct device_node *np,
> +					genpd_xlate_t xlate, void *data)
> +{
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +static inline void of_genpd_del_provider(struct device_node *np) {}
> +
> +#define __of_genpd_xlate_simple		NULL
> +#define __of_genpd_xlate_onecell	NULL
> +
> +static inline int genpd_dev_pm_attach(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	return -ENODEV;
> +}
> +static inline int genpd_dev_pm_detach(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +	return -ENODEV;
> +}
> +#endif /* CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF */
> +
> +static inline int of_genpd_add_provider_simple(struct device_node *np,
> +					struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
> +{
> +	return __of_genpd_add_provider(np, __of_genpd_xlate_simple, genpd);
> +}
> +static inline int of_genpd_add_provider_onecell(struct device_node *np,
> +					struct genpd_onecell_data *data)
> +{
> +	return __of_genpd_add_provider(np, __of_genpd_xlate_onecell, data);
> +}
> +
>  #endif /* _LINUX_PM_DOMAIN_H */
> diff --git a/kernel/power/Kconfig b/kernel/power/Kconfig
> index e4e4121..897619b 100644
> --- a/kernel/power/Kconfig
> +++ b/kernel/power/Kconfig
> @@ -302,6 +302,10 @@ config PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_RUNTIME
>  	def_bool y
>  	depends on PM_RUNTIME && PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS
>  
> +config PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF
> +	def_bool y
> +	depends on PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS && OF && !ARCH_EXYNOS
> +
>  config CPU_PM
>  	bool
>  	depends on SUSPEND || CPU_IDLE
>

On 8 September 2014 00:13, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 04, 2014 03:52:29 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> From: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
>>
>> This patch introduces generic code to perform PM domain look-up using
>> device tree and automatically bind devices to their PM domains.
>>
>> Generic device tree bindings are introduced to specify PM domains of
>> devices in their device tree nodes.
>>
>> Backwards compatibility with legacy Samsung-specific PM domain bindings
>> is provided, but for now the new code is not compiled when
>> CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is selected to avoid collision with legacy code.
>> This will change as soon as the Exynos PM domain code gets converted to
>> use the generic framework in further patch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>> [Ulf:Added attach|detach functions, fixed review comments]
>> Tested-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
>
> However, for this one (and consequently the rest) I need an ACK from the
> people who maintain the bindings.

These DT bindings have been discussed between Tomasz and devicetree
maintainers previously. So I think there are fine.

Also, when browsing the mail-archives, I found an ack from Rob Herrring:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/237989.html

I realize that I didn't put the DT maintainers on the to-line when
posting this patch, but just the devicetree list. I have now included
them on this reply, but maybe I should repost instead. What do you
think? Are you happy with the above ack from Rob?

Kind regards
Uffe

>
>> ---
>>  .../devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt     |  49 ++++
>>  drivers/base/power/domain.c                        | 291 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>  include/linux/pm_domain.h                          |  57 ++++
>>  kernel/power/Kconfig                               |   4 +
>>  4 files changed, 401 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..98c1667
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
>> +* Generic PM domains
>> +
>> +System on chip designs are often divided into multiple PM domains that can be
>> +used for power gating of selected IP blocks for power saving by reduced leakage
>> +current.
>> +
>> +This device tree binding can be used to bind PM domain consumer devices with
>> +their PM domains provided by PM domain providers. A PM domain provider can be
>> +represented by any node in the device tree and can provide one or more PM
>> +domains. A consumer node can refer to the provider by a phandle and a set of
>> +phandle arguments (so called PM domain specifiers) of length specified by the
>> +#power-domain-cells property in the PM domain provider node.
>> +
>> +==PM domain providers==
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> + - #power-domain-cells : Number of cells in a PM domain specifier;
>> +   Typically 0 for nodes representing a single PM domain and 1 for nodes
>> +   providing multiple PM domains (e.g. power controllers), but can be any value
>> +   as specified by device tree binding documentation of particular provider.
>> +
>> +Example:
>> +
>> +     power: power-controller@12340000 {
>> +             compatible = "foo,power-controller";
>> +             reg = <0x12340000 0x1000>;
>> +             #power-domain-cells = <1>;
>> +     };
>> +
>> +The node above defines a power controller that is a PM domain provider and
>> +expects one cell as its phandle argument.
>> +
>> +==PM domain consumers==
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> + - power-domains : A phandle and PM domain specifier as defined by bindings of
>> +                   the power controller specified by phandle.
>> +
>> +Example:
>> +
>> +     leaky-device@12350000 {
>> +             compatible = "foo,i-leak-current";
>> +             reg = <0x12350000 0x1000>;
>> +             power-domains = <&power 0>;
>> +     };
>> +
>> +The node above defines a typical PM domain consumer device, which is located
>> +inside a PM domain with index 0 of a power controller represented by a node
>> +with the label "power".
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
>> index eee55c1..ed42651 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c
>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
>>
>>  #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>  #include <linux/io.h>
>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>  #include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
>>  #include <linux/pm_domain.h>
>>  #include <linux/pm_qos.h>
>> @@ -2189,3 +2190,293 @@ void pm_genpd_init(struct generic_pm_domain *genpd,
>>       list_add(&genpd->gpd_list_node, &gpd_list);
>>       mutex_unlock(&gpd_list_lock);
>>  }
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF
>> +/*
>> + * Device Tree based PM domain providers.
>> + *
>> + * The code below implements generic device tree based PM domain providers that
>> + * bind device tree nodes with generic PM domains registered in the system.
>> + *
>> + * Any driver that registers generic PM domains and needs to support binding of
>> + * devices to these domains is supposed to register a PM domain provider, which
>> + * maps a PM domain specifier retrieved from the device tree to a PM domain.
>> + *
>> + * Two simple mapping functions have been provided for convenience:
>> + *  - __of_genpd_xlate_simple() for 1:1 device tree node to PM domain mapping.
>> + *  - __of_genpd_xlate_onecell() for mapping of multiple PM domains per node by
>> + *    index.
>> + */
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * struct of_genpd_provider - PM domain provider registration structure
>> + * @link: Entry in global list of PM domain providers
>> + * @node: Pointer to device tree node of PM domain provider
>> + * @xlate: Provider-specific xlate callback mapping a set of specifier cells
>> + *         into a PM domain.
>> + * @data: context pointer to be passed into @xlate callback
>> + */
>> +struct of_genpd_provider {
>> +     struct list_head link;
>> +     struct device_node *node;
>> +     genpd_xlate_t xlate;
>> +     void *data;
>> +};
>> +
>> +/* List of registered PM domain providers. */
>> +static LIST_HEAD(of_genpd_providers);
>> +/* Mutex to protect the list above. */
>> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(of_genpd_mutex);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * __of_genpd_xlate_simple() - Xlate function for direct node-domain mapping
>> + * @genpdspec: OF phandle args to map into a PM domain
>> + * @data: xlate function private data - pointer to struct generic_pm_domain
>> + *
>> + * This is a generic xlate function that can be used to model PM domains that
>> + * have their own device tree nodes. The private data of xlate function needs
>> + * to be a valid pointer to struct generic_pm_domain.
>> + */
>> +struct generic_pm_domain *__of_genpd_xlate_simple(
>> +                                     struct of_phandle_args *genpdspec,
>> +                                     void *data)
>> +{
>> +     if (genpdspec->args_count != 0)
>> +             return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> +     return data;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__of_genpd_xlate_simple);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * __of_genpd_xlate_onecell() - Xlate function using a single index.
>> + * @genpdspec: OF phandle args to map into a PM domain
>> + * @data: xlate function private data - pointer to struct genpd_onecell_data
>> + *
>> + * This is a generic xlate function that can be used to model simple PM domain
>> + * controllers that have one device tree node and provide multiple PM domains.
>> + * A single cell is used as an index into an array of PM domains specified in
>> + * the genpd_onecell_data struct when registering the provider.
>> + */
>> +struct generic_pm_domain *__of_genpd_xlate_onecell(
>> +                                     struct of_phandle_args *genpdspec,
>> +                                     void *data)
>> +{
>> +     struct genpd_onecell_data *genpd_data = data;
>> +     unsigned int idx = genpdspec->args[0];
>> +
>> +     if (genpdspec->args_count != 1)
>> +             return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> +
>> +     if (idx >= genpd_data->num_domains) {
>> +             pr_err("%s: invalid domain index %u\n", __func__, idx);
>> +             return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     if (!genpd_data->domains[idx])
>> +             return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
>> +
>> +     return genpd_data->domains[idx];
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__of_genpd_xlate_onecell);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * __of_genpd_add_provider() - Register a PM domain provider for a node
>> + * @np: Device node pointer associated with the PM domain provider.
>> + * @xlate: Callback for decoding PM domain from phandle arguments.
>> + * @data: Context pointer for @xlate callback.
>> + */
>> +int __of_genpd_add_provider(struct device_node *np, genpd_xlate_t xlate,
>> +                     void *data)
>> +{
>> +     struct of_genpd_provider *cp;
>> +
>> +     cp = kzalloc(sizeof(*cp), GFP_KERNEL);
>> +     if (!cp)
>> +             return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> +     cp->node = of_node_get(np);
>> +     cp->data = data;
>> +     cp->xlate = xlate;
>> +
>> +     mutex_lock(&of_genpd_mutex);
>> +     list_add(&cp->link, &of_genpd_providers);
>> +     mutex_unlock(&of_genpd_mutex);
>> +     pr_debug("Added domain provider from %s\n", np->full_name);
>> +
>> +     return 0;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__of_genpd_add_provider);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * of_genpd_del_provider() - Remove a previously registered PM domain provider
>> + * @np: Device node pointer associated with the PM domain provider
>> + */
>> +void of_genpd_del_provider(struct device_node *np)
>> +{
>> +     struct of_genpd_provider *cp;
>> +
>> +     mutex_lock(&of_genpd_mutex);
>> +     list_for_each_entry(cp, &of_genpd_providers, link) {
>> +             if (cp->node == np) {
>> +                     list_del(&cp->link);
>> +                     of_node_put(cp->node);
>> +                     kfree(cp);
>> +                     break;
>> +             }
>> +     }
>> +     mutex_unlock(&of_genpd_mutex);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(of_genpd_del_provider);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * of_genpd_get_from_provider() - Look-up PM domain
>> + * @genpdspec: OF phandle args to use for look-up
>> + *
>> + * Looks for a PM domain provider under the node specified by @genpdspec and if
>> + * found, uses xlate function of the provider to map phandle args to a PM
>> + * domain.
>> + *
>> + * Returns a valid pointer to struct generic_pm_domain on success or ERR_PTR()
>> + * on failure.
>> + */
>> +static struct generic_pm_domain *of_genpd_get_from_provider(
>> +                                     struct of_phandle_args *genpdspec)
>> +{
>> +     struct generic_pm_domain *genpd = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
>> +     struct of_genpd_provider *provider;
>> +
>> +     mutex_lock(&of_genpd_mutex);
>> +
>> +     /* Check if we have such a provider in our array */
>> +     list_for_each_entry(provider, &of_genpd_providers, link) {
>> +             if (provider->node == genpdspec->np)
>> +                     genpd = provider->xlate(genpdspec, provider->data);
>> +             if (!IS_ERR(genpd))
>> +                     break;
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     mutex_unlock(&of_genpd_mutex);
>> +
>> +     return genpd;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * genpd_dev_pm_attach - Attach a device to its PM domain using DT.
>> + * @dev: Device to attach.
>> + *
>> + * Parse device's OF node to find a PM domain specifier. If such is found,
>> + * attaches the device to retrieved pm_domain ops.
>> + *
>> + * Both generic and legacy Samsung-specific DT bindings are supported to keep
>> + * backwards compatibility with existing DTBs.
>> + *
>> + * Returns 0 on successfully attached PM domain or negative error code.
>> + */
>> +int genpd_dev_pm_attach(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +     struct of_phandle_args pd_args;
>> +     struct generic_pm_domain *pd;
>> +     int ret;
>> +
>> +     if (!dev->of_node)
>> +             return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> +     if (dev->pm_domain)
>> +             return -EEXIST;
>> +
>> +     ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(dev->of_node, "power-domains",
>> +                                     "#power-domain-cells", 0, &pd_args);
>> +     if (ret < 0) {
>> +             if (ret != -ENOENT)
>> +                     return ret;
>> +
>> +             /*
>> +              * Try legacy Samsung-specific bindings
>> +              * (for backwards compatibility of DT ABI)
>> +              */
>> +             pd_args.args_count = 0;
>> +             pd_args.np = of_parse_phandle(dev->of_node,
>> +                                             "samsung,power-domain", 0);
>> +             if (!pd_args.np)
>> +                     return -ENOENT;
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     pd = of_genpd_get_from_provider(&pd_args);
>> +     if (IS_ERR(pd)) {
>> +             dev_dbg(dev, "%s() failed to find PM domain: %ld\n",
>> +                     __func__, PTR_ERR(pd));
>> +             of_node_put(dev->of_node);
>> +             return PTR_ERR(pd);
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     dev_dbg(dev, "adding to PM domain %s\n", pd->name);
>> +
>> +     while (1) {
>> +             ret = pm_genpd_add_device(pd, dev);
>> +             if (ret != -EAGAIN)
>> +                     break;
>> +             cond_resched();
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     if (ret < 0) {
>> +             dev_err(dev, "failed to add to PM domain %s: %d",
>> +                     pd->name, ret);
>> +             of_node_put(dev->of_node);
>> +             return ret;
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     return 0;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(genpd_dev_pm_attach);
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * genpd_dev_pm_detach - Detach a device from its PM domain.
>> + * @dev: Device to attach.
>> + *
>> + * Try to locate a corresponding generic PM domain, which the device was
>> + * attached to previously. If such is found, the device is detached from it.
>> + *
>> + * Returns 0 on successfully detached PM domain or negative error code.
>> + */
>> +int genpd_dev_pm_detach(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +     struct generic_pm_domain *pd = NULL, *gpd;
>> +     int ret = 0;
>> +
>> +     if (!dev->pm_domain)
>> +             return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> +     mutex_lock(&gpd_list_lock);
>> +     list_for_each_entry(gpd, &gpd_list, gpd_list_node) {
>> +             if (&gpd->domain == dev->pm_domain) {
>> +                     pd = gpd;
>> +                     break;
>> +             }
>> +     }
>> +     mutex_unlock(&gpd_list_lock);
>> +
>> +     if (!pd)
>> +             return -ENOENT;
>> +
>> +     dev_dbg(dev, "removing from PM domain %s\n", pd->name);
>> +
>> +     while (1) {
>> +             ret = pm_genpd_remove_device(pd, dev);
>> +             if (ret != -EAGAIN)
>> +                     break;
>> +             cond_resched();
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     if (ret < 0) {
>> +             dev_err(dev, "failed to remove from PM domain %s: %d",
>> +                     pd->name, ret);
>> +             return ret;
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     /* Check if PM domain can be powered off after removing this device. */
>> +     genpd_queue_power_off_work(pd);
>> +
>> +     return 0;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(genpd_dev_pm_detach);
>> +#endif
>> diff --git a/include/linux/pm_domain.h b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
>> index ebc4c76..b09eaa7 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/pm_domain.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/pm_domain.h
>> @@ -310,4 +310,61 @@ static inline void pm_genpd_syscore_poweron(struct device *dev)
>>       pm_genpd_syscore_switch(dev, false);
>>  }
>>
>> +/* OF PM domain providers */
>> +struct of_device_id;
>> +
>> +struct genpd_onecell_data {
>> +     struct generic_pm_domain **domains;
>> +     unsigned int num_domains;
>> +};
>> +
>> +typedef struct generic_pm_domain *(*genpd_xlate_t)(struct of_phandle_args *args,
>> +                                             void *data);
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF
>> +int __of_genpd_add_provider(struct device_node *np, genpd_xlate_t xlate,
>> +                     void *data);
>> +void of_genpd_del_provider(struct device_node *np);
>> +
>> +struct generic_pm_domain *__of_genpd_xlate_simple(
>> +                                     struct of_phandle_args *genpdspec,
>> +                                     void *data);
>> +struct generic_pm_domain *__of_genpd_xlate_onecell(
>> +                                     struct of_phandle_args *genpdspec,
>> +                                     void *data);
>> +
>> +int genpd_dev_pm_attach(struct device *dev);
>> +int genpd_dev_pm_detach(struct device *dev);
>> +#else /* !CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF */
>> +static inline int __of_genpd_add_provider(struct device_node *np,
>> +                                     genpd_xlate_t xlate, void *data)
>> +{
>> +     return 0;
>> +}
>> +static inline void of_genpd_del_provider(struct device_node *np) {}
>> +
>> +#define __of_genpd_xlate_simple              NULL
>> +#define __of_genpd_xlate_onecell     NULL
>> +
>> +static inline int genpd_dev_pm_attach(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +     return -ENODEV;
>> +}
>> +static inline int genpd_dev_pm_detach(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> +     return -ENODEV;
>> +}
>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF */
>> +
>> +static inline int of_genpd_add_provider_simple(struct device_node *np,
>> +                                     struct generic_pm_domain *genpd)
>> +{
>> +     return __of_genpd_add_provider(np, __of_genpd_xlate_simple, genpd);
>> +}
>> +static inline int of_genpd_add_provider_onecell(struct device_node *np,
>> +                                     struct genpd_onecell_data *data)
>> +{
>> +     return __of_genpd_add_provider(np, __of_genpd_xlate_onecell, data);
>> +}
>> +
>>  #endif /* _LINUX_PM_DOMAIN_H */
>> diff --git a/kernel/power/Kconfig b/kernel/power/Kconfig
>> index e4e4121..897619b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/power/Kconfig
>> +++ b/kernel/power/Kconfig
>> @@ -302,6 +302,10 @@ config PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_RUNTIME
>>       def_bool y
>>       depends on PM_RUNTIME && PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS
>>
>> +config PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS_OF
>> +     def_bool y
>> +     depends on PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS && OF && !ARCH_EXYNOS
>> +
>>  config CPU_PM
>>       bool
>>       depends on SUSPEND || CPU_IDLE
>>
>
> --
> I speak only for myself.
> Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Hi Rafael,

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> BTW, I get bounces from t.figa@samsung.com, so I won't apply the patch with
> that as the "From" field.  And the s-o-b from a bouncing address is worthless
> too.

In the mean time, Tomasz has moved:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg357102.html

Still, the From/SoB indicate attribution to Samsung, so I think it should be
kept.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On 08.09.2014 23:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, September 08, 2014 11:04:23 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Monday, September 08, 2014 09:26:20 AM Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 8 September 2014 00:13, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, September 04, 2014 03:52:29 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>>>> From: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch introduces generic code to perform PM domain look-up using
>>>>> device tree and automatically bind devices to their PM domains.
>>>>>
>>>>> Generic device tree bindings are introduced to specify PM domains of
>>>>> devices in their device tree nodes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Backwards compatibility with legacy Samsung-specific PM domain bindings
>>>>> is provided, but for now the new code is not compiled when
>>>>> CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is selected to avoid collision with legacy code.
>>>>> This will change as soon as the Exynos PM domain code gets converted to
>>>>> use the generic framework in further patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>>>>> [Ulf:Added attach|detach functions, fixed review comments]
>>>>> Tested-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
>>>>
>>>> However, for this one (and consequently the rest) I need an ACK from the
>>>> people who maintain the bindings.
>>>
>>> These DT bindings have been discussed between Tomasz and devicetree
>>> maintainers previously. So I think there are fine.
>>>
>>> Also, when browsing the mail-archives, I found an ack from Rob Herrring:
>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/237989.html
>>>
>>> I realize that I didn't put the DT maintainers on the to-line when
>>> posting this patch, but just the devicetree list. I have now included
>>> them on this reply, but maybe I should repost instead. What do you
>>> think? Are you happy with the above ack from Rob?
>>
>> That should be sufficient, but I wonder why you didn't add it to the patch
>> to start with?
> 
> BTW, I get bounces from t.figa@samsung.com, so I won't apply the patch with
> that as the "From" field.  And the s-o-b from a bouncing address is worthless
> too.

Yes, that e-mail address is no longer valid, as I'm not at Samsung
anymore. I'm not sure what's the right thing to do with From and SOB in
this series, though.

If it's of any help, my private address (and the one I use for things I
maintain and any open source activity on my own) is this one.

Best regards,
Tomasz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Monday, September 08, 2014 09:26:20 AM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 8 September 2014 00:13, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 04, 2014 03:52:29 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >> From: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> >>
> >> This patch introduces generic code to perform PM domain look-up using
> >> device tree and automatically bind devices to their PM domains.
> >>
> >> Generic device tree bindings are introduced to specify PM domains of
> >> devices in their device tree nodes.
> >>
> >> Backwards compatibility with legacy Samsung-specific PM domain bindings
> >> is provided, but for now the new code is not compiled when
> >> CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is selected to avoid collision with legacy code.
> >> This will change as soon as the Exynos PM domain code gets converted to
> >> use the generic framework in further patch.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
> >> [Ulf:Added attach|detach functions, fixed review comments]
> >> Tested-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
> >
> > However, for this one (and consequently the rest) I need an ACK from the
> > people who maintain the bindings.
> 
> These DT bindings have been discussed between Tomasz and devicetree
> maintainers previously. So I think there are fine.
> 
> Also, when browsing the mail-archives, I found an ack from Rob Herrring:
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/237989.html
> 
> I realize that I didn't put the DT maintainers on the to-line when
> posting this patch, but just the devicetree list. I have now included
> them on this reply, but maybe I should repost instead. What do you
> think? Are you happy with the above ack from Rob?

That should be sufficient, but I wonder why you didn't add it to the patch
to start with?

Rafael

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Monday, September 08, 2014 11:04:23 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, September 08, 2014 09:26:20 AM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On 8 September 2014 00:13, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 04, 2014 03:52:29 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > >> From: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> > >>
> > >> This patch introduces generic code to perform PM domain look-up using
> > >> device tree and automatically bind devices to their PM domains.
> > >>
> > >> Generic device tree bindings are introduced to specify PM domains of
> > >> devices in their device tree nodes.
> > >>
> > >> Backwards compatibility with legacy Samsung-specific PM domain bindings
> > >> is provided, but for now the new code is not compiled when
> > >> CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is selected to avoid collision with legacy code.
> > >> This will change as soon as the Exynos PM domain code gets converted to
> > >> use the generic framework in further patch.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
> > >> [Ulf:Added attach|detach functions, fixed review comments]
> > >> Tested-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
> > >
> > > However, for this one (and consequently the rest) I need an ACK from the
> > > people who maintain the bindings.
> > 
> > These DT bindings have been discussed between Tomasz and devicetree
> > maintainers previously. So I think there are fine.
> > 
> > Also, when browsing the mail-archives, I found an ack from Rob Herrring:
> > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/237989.html
> > 
> > I realize that I didn't put the DT maintainers on the to-line when
> > posting this patch, but just the devicetree list. I have now included
> > them on this reply, but maybe I should repost instead. What do you
> > think? Are you happy with the above ack from Rob?
> 
> That should be sufficient, but I wonder why you didn't add it to the patch
> to start with?

BTW, I get bounces from t.figa@samsung.com, so I won't apply the patch with
that as the "From" field.  And the s-o-b from a bouncing address is worthless
too.

Rafael

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Monday, September 08, 2014 10:53:09 PM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> > BTW, I get bounces from t.figa@samsung.com, so I won't apply the patch with
> > that as the "From" field.  And the s-o-b from a bouncing address is worthless
> > too.
> 
> In the mean time, Tomasz has moved:
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg357102.html
> 
> Still, the From/SoB indicate attribution to Samsung, so I think it should be
> kept.

The "From:" field should point to a submitter's address that is actually active,
so that (s)he can handle problem reports *sent* *to* *that* address.  I'm not
going to apply anything with a bouncing "From:".

The s-o-b is more of a gray area, but again it is supposed to be possible
to verify which it won't be if it bounces.

Also note that this is not Tomasz who is submitting this patch today, but Ulf
who doesn't even work for Samsung as far as I know.

So I'd suggest using "Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>" as a "From:", remove
his s-o-b entirely (and using the Ulf's one only) and add something like that
to the changelog:

"This patch was originally submitted by Tomasz Figa when he was employed
 by Samsung.

 Link: <URL-of-the-original-submission>"

This way Samsung will get the recognition and there won't be bouncing addresses
in tags etc.

Rafael

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On 8 September 2014 23:04, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
> On Monday, September 08, 2014 09:26:20 AM Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> On 8 September 2014 00:13, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>> > On Thursday, September 04, 2014 03:52:29 PM Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> >> From: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
>> >>
>> >> This patch introduces generic code to perform PM domain look-up using
>> >> device tree and automatically bind devices to their PM domains.
>> >>
>> >> Generic device tree bindings are introduced to specify PM domains of
>> >> devices in their device tree nodes.
>> >>
>> >> Backwards compatibility with legacy Samsung-specific PM domain bindings
>> >> is provided, but for now the new code is not compiled when
>> >> CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is selected to avoid collision with legacy code.
>> >> This will change as soon as the Exynos PM domain code gets converted to
>> >> use the generic framework in further patch.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>> >> [Ulf:Added attach|detach functions, fixed review comments]
>> >> Tested-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
>> >
>> > However, for this one (and consequently the rest) I need an ACK from the
>> > people who maintain the bindings.
>>
>> These DT bindings have been discussed between Tomasz and devicetree
>> maintainers previously. So I think there are fine.
>>
>> Also, when browsing the mail-archives, I found an ack from Rob Herrring:
>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-March/237989.html
>>
>> I realize that I didn't put the DT maintainers on the to-line when
>> posting this patch, but just the devicetree list. I have now included
>> them on this reply, but maybe I should repost instead. What do you
>> think? Are you happy with the above ack from Rob?
>
> That should be sufficient, but I wonder why you didn't add it to the patch
> to start with?

I didn't remember it being formally acked, until I decided to browsed
the mail archives in detail. Sorry about that.

Kind regards
Uffe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 11:26:49PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> The s-o-b is more of a gray area, but again it is supposed to be possible
> to verify which it won't be if it bounces.

That's always going to be an issue with signoffs - people's addresses
can and do go bad at any point.

> Also note that this is not Tomasz who is submitting this patch today, but Ulf
> who doesn't even work for Samsung as far as I know.

> So I'd suggest using "Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>" as a "From:", remove
> his s-o-b entirely (and using the Ulf's one only) and add something like that
> to the changelog:

> "This patch was originally submitted by Tomasz Figa when he was employed
>  by Samsung.

>  Link: <URL-of-the-original-submission>"

> This way Samsung will get the recognition and there won't be bouncing addresses
> in tags etc.

Stripping people's signoffs seems more worrying than a bouncing address
TBH - it's more alarming to see a commit log that's missing an author
signoff than finding an address that doesn't work, I'd probably just
drop any submissions that did that.  If you're really worried updating
the signoff address or adding a comment with the new one is probably
better.

On Tuesday, September 09, 2014 12:40:51 PM Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> --FJ0JV+AOCbvjFtNn
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> 
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 11:26:49PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> > The s-o-b is more of a gray area, but again it is supposed to be possible
> > to verify which it won't be if it bounces.
> 
> That's always going to be an issue with signoffs - people's addresses
> can and do go bad at any point.

I know and that's a gray area as I said.

Whether or not it is appropriate to submit a patch with an s-o-b that is known
to bounce is a good question to me.

It is true, though, that this particular patch was originally submitted when
the s-o-b address didn't bounce, so I may restore the tag when applying the
patch.  Need to think about that.