Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>
To:     jerome Neanne <jneanne@baylibre.com>, Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
Cc:     Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>, lgirdwood@gmail.com,
        broonie@kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, kristo@kernel.org,
        dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, tony@atomide.com,
        vigneshr@ti.com, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org, shawnguo@kernel.org,
        geert+renesas@glider.be, dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org,
        marcel.ziswiler@toradex.com, vkoul@kernel.org,
        biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com, arnd@arndb.de, jeff@labundy.com,
        narmstrong@baylibre.com, msp@baylibre.com, j-keerthy@ti.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] mfd: tps65219: Add driver for TI TPS65219 PMIC
In-Reply-To: <1267bf43-618c-7347-be3a-2792c656d9b6@baylibre.com>
References: <20221011140549.16761-1-jneanne@baylibre.com>
 <20221011140549.16761-5-jneanne@baylibre.com>
 <Y1+q2Usm9ecicXqp@google.com>
 <1383fd22-c720-811e-a2bb-be2151675089@baylibre.com>
 <20221105000104.rtj3r6ufqwqmepon@keenly> <7heduewjp0.fsf@baylibre.com>
 <5418ac3b-04d7-5e77-7612-c8f168e24621@ti.com>
 <1267bf43-618c-7347-be3a-2792c656d9b6@baylibre.com>
Date:   Thu, 10 Nov 2022 09:00:47 -0800
Message-ID: <7hk042agn4.fsf@baylibre.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

jerome Neanne <jneanne@baylibre.com> writes:

> On 09/11/2022 22:59, Andrew Davis wrote:
>> On 11/7/22 3:14 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>>> Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 13:58-20221104, jerome Neanne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you try an compile with W=3D1 please.
>>>>> This raise one warning on mfd:
>>>>> drivers/mfd/tps65219.c:28:12: warning: =E2=80=98tps65219_soft_shutdow=
n=E2=80=99=20
>>>>> defined but
>>>>> not used [-Wunused-function]
>>>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 28 | static int tps65219_soft_shutdown(struct tps6=
5219 *tps)
>>>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 |=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>> soft_shutdown has been validated and is used in TI baseline even if n=
ot
>>>>> hooked in upstream version further to this review:
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220825150224.826258-5-msp@baylibre.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> It was a TI requirement to implement it...
>>>>> Let me know if you want me to remove this function or if we can keep=
=20
>>>>> it like
>>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> There are platforms without psci, correct? I think the comment was to
>>>> drop the force override with system-power-controller property,
>>>>
>>>> if (!pm_power_off) {
>>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0tps65219_i2c_client =3D client;
>>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0pm_power_off =3D &tps65219_pm_power_off;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Could still be valid for such platforms, no? I do see that the
>>>> capability that the PMIC has - which is software shutdown is a valid
>>>> feature that we support in many different PMIC drivers. Is'nt the job =
of
>>>> the driver to introduce the functionality in a manner that is
>>>> appropriate to the OS framework?
>>>
>>> Yeah, I think Nishanth is right here.
>>>
>>> We should probably keep the `if (!pm_power_off)` part so the PMIC will
>>> be used if PSCI is not, but it also allows an easy way to test/use the=
=20
>>> PMIC
>>> shutdown functionality downstream if needed.
>>>
>>=20
>> Then should be using the sys-off handler API[0] so it doesn't block PSCI
>> which is also switching over[1].
>>=20
>> Andrew
>>=20
>> [0] https://lwn.net/Articles/894511/
>> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg1024127.html
> Can we go for upstream with v7 without tps65219_soft_shutdown. Then if=20
> everyone agrees with Andrew proposal, I'll submit a separate patch which=
=20
> adds implementation of tps65219_soft_shutdown support through sys-off=20
> handler.
>
> So that we are not blocking upstream in case further=20
> discussions/alignment are required.

Seems OK to me.  Nishanth?  Andrew?

But I think you'll need to at least submit a v8 without the unused
code/dead code that Lee pointed out.

Kevin