Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 1/3] runtime interpreted power sequences |
|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 1/3] runtime interpreted power sequences
- From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:01:21 +0200
- Cc: Alex Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxx>, Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rob Herring <rob.herring@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>, "linux-tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-tegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-fbdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-fbdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "devicetree-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <devicetree-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <20120801135531.GW11892@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:55:31PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 03:38:14PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 02:26:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
>
> > > This is why __devinit data will only be discarded when this is not
> > > possible.
>
> > That's exactly my point. But I seem to have miserably failed to get that
> > across. =)
>
> We must be talking at cross purposes then. What I'm saying is that the
> framework shouldn't rely on platform data and should assume that the
> kernel might be configured so it can be discarded (by copying most
> likely).
Yes. I think this should be solved by the power_seq_build() function
which uses the platform data description of the sequence and builds it
into something for internal use that doesn't rely on anything in the
platform data.
Thierry
Attachment:
pgpVnnRkQomlf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
[ARM Kernel]
[Linux USB Devel]
[Video for Linux]
[Linux Audio Users]
[Photo]
[Yosemite News]
[Yosemite Photos]
[Free Online Dating]
[Linux Kernel]
[Linux SCSI]
[XFree86]