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;
Message-ID: <8ce740ac-54e9-bf31-1e03-2f3e0e9ef63c@starfivetech.com>
Date:   Fri, 21 Apr 2023 11:27:52 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.10.0
Subject: Re: [RESEND v2 4/6] soc: starfive: Extract JH7110 pmu private
 operations
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
CC:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Walker Chen <walker.chen@starfivetech.com>,
        Hal Feng <hal.feng@starfivetech.com>,
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>
References: <20230419035646.43702-1-changhuang.liang@starfivetech.com>
 <20230419035646.43702-5-changhuang.liang@starfivetech.com>
 <20230419-atypical-unbounded-99cbbff3091a@spud>
From:   Changhuang Liang <changhuang.liang@starfivetech.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230419-atypical-unbounded-99cbbff3091a@spud>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2023/4/20 1:47, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 08:56:44PM -0700, Changhuang Liang wrote:
>> Move JH7110 private operation into private data of compatible.
>> Convenient to expand different compatible.
> 
> I prefer how the code looks in v2, thanks.
> However, just as in the prior patch, "Convenient to expand different
> compatible" isn't really a justification - specifically, supporting the
> power domain controller serving the dphy is your motivation here. The
> important difference being that it uses a regmap from a syscon and has
> no interrupts nor the encourage features.
> 

So should I expand the commit message which called "in order to add the 
aon power domain" although the patch is applied behind current patch.

> Although, given the only real similarity the code driving each of the
> PMUs is the variable names, I guess you could argue that this driver
> should be left alone and the "aon dphy" should be a different driver
> altogether.
> 

I have tried independent this aon pmu, but it code is very similar to the
original pmu, so I think they can put together, reduce linux kernel bloat.

> I don't have a strong opinion though & if it's fine with Walker and
> noone else objects, it's fine with me...