Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 1/3] runtime interpreted power sequences

[Alex Courbot]

On 08/07/2012 01:16 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/05/2012 08:27 PM, Alex Courbot wrote:
> > On 08/04/2012 11:12 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 10:15:46AM +0900, Alex Courbot wrote:
> > > > On Fri 03 Aug 2012 03:11:12 AM JST, Mark Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I missed some of the earlier bits of the thread here but why can't
> > > > > we do
> > > > > device based lookups?
> ...
> > I think we only have two choices for this:
> >
> > 1) Stick to the scheme where resources are declared at the device level,
> > such as they can be referenced by name in the sub-nodes (basically what
> > I did in this patch):
> >
> > backlight {
> >       compatible = "pwm-backlight";
> >       ...
> >       backlight-supply = <&backlight_reg>;
> >
> >       power-on-sequence {
> >           step@0 {
> >               regulator = "backlight";
> >               enable;
> >           };
> >
> > This would translate by a get_regulator(dev, "backlight") in the code
> > which would be properly resolved.
>
> Yes, upon reflection, that scheme does make sense. I withdraw the
> comments I made re: whether it'd be better to just stick the phandles
> into the steps.

Right - having the phandles directly in the sequences has its merits, 
but logically speaking resources are related to a device, so this 
declarative approach is probably closer to reality anyway.

I will revise the patch according to all the feedback received and 
submit a new version soon.

Thanks,
Alex.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/