Message-ID: <5091AA73.10905@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:47:15 -0600
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@ti.com>
CC: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
        Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dt: describe base reset signal binding
References: <1351028756-22309-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <20121029183233.18780.11964@nucleus> <5090161D.2030702@wwwdotorg.org> <20121031103221.18780.43096@nucleus>
In-Reply-To: <20121031103221.18780.43096@nucleus>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2632
Lines: 55

On 10/31/2012 04:32 AM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Stephen Warren (2012-10-30 11:02:05)
>> On 10/29/2012 12:32 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
>>> Quoting Stephen Warren (2012-10-23 14:45:56)
>>>> What do people think of this? Does it sound like a good idea to go ahead
>>>> with a reset subsystem? Should we simply add a new API to the common clock
>>>> subsystem instead (and assume that reset and clock domains match 1:1).
>>>> Should this be implemented as part of the generic power management domains;
>>>> see include/linux/pm_domain.h instead?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure a "reset subsystem" is necessary, but I also do not like
>>> using clocks as the keys for IP reset.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're suggesting as an alternative to a reset
>> subsystem (or API if you want something that sounds smaller!) :-)
> 
> My point was that I do not know if a new subsystem is necessary or not.
> Your suggestion to "simply add a new API to the common clock subsystem"
> is an example of an alternative to a whole new subsystem.  However I
> instinctively feel that the clock api is not the right place for
> reseting devices.

driver/base/power is about the only related place I can think of given a
quick look. However, in a similar way to clocks, I don't think there's
necessarily a 1:1 relationship between power domains and reset domains
either, so driver/base/power doesn't feel like a good fit in just the
same way that drivers/clk doesn't.

I wonder if a drivers/base/reset/ or drivers/base/reset.c would be
appropriate?

>>> I think it is more common to map IPs to struct device, no?
>>
>> It is indeed probably common that there's a 1:1 mapping between IP
>> blocks and struct device. However, I'm sure there are plenty of
>> counter-examples; IP blocks with multiple reset domains (hence struct
>> devices that encompass multiple reset domains, or reset domains that
>> encompass multiple struct devices), just as there are many examples of
>> non-1:1 mappings between struct device and struct clk.
> 
> In OMAP code we handle IP resets through the hwmod code and I prefer
> that IP-centric approach to associating IP resets with a clock node.
> Perhaps the hwmod approach could serve as inspiration for a new generic
> way to reset modules.

OK, I'm not even slightly familiar with the hwmod code, but I keep
hearing about it, so I'll go take a quick look.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/