Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] power-domain: add power domain drivers for Rockchip platform

[Ulf Hansson]

Hi Jinkun,

[...]

> +
> +static int rockchip_pd_power_on(struct generic_pm_domain *domain)
> +{
> +       int ret = 0;
> +       struct rockchip_domain *pd = to_rockchip_pd(domain);
> +
> +       if (pd->dev == NULL)
> +               pr_err("pd->dev is NULL, power on failed!", __func__);
> +
> +       pm_clk_resume(pd->dev);
> +       ret = rockchip_pmu_set_power_domain(pd, true);
> +       pm_clk_suspend(pd->dev);
> +
> +       return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static int rockchip_pd_power_off(struct generic_pm_domain *domain)
> +{
> +       int ret = 0;
> +       struct rockchip_domain *pd = to_rockchip_pd(domain);
> +
> +       if (pd->dev == NULL)
> +               pr_err("pd->dev is NULL, power off failed!", __func__);
> +
> +       pm_clk_resume(pd->dev);
> +       ret = rockchip_pmu_set_power_domain(pd, false);
> +       pm_clk_suspend(pd->dev);
> +
> +       return 0;
> +}
> +
> +void rockchip_pm_domain_attach_dev(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +       struct clk *clk;
> +       int ret;
> +       int i = 0;
> +       struct rockchip_domain *pd;
> +
> +       pd = (struct rockchip_domain *)dev->pm_domain;
> +       pd->dev = dev;

This looks wrong.

You will update "pd->dev" for each device that gets added to the PM
domain. The last one will be set to "pd->dev".
So, it would still work as long as you only have one device per
domain. Is that the case?

Could you elaborate on why you have chosen to do it this way?

> +
> +       ret = pm_clk_create(dev);
> +       if (ret) {
> +               dev_err(dev, "pm_clk_create failed %d\n", ret);
> +               return;
> +       };
> +
> +       while ((clk = of_clk_get(dev->of_node, i++)) && !IS_ERR(clk)) {
> +               ret = pm_clk_add_clk(dev, clk);
> +               if (ret) {
> +                       dev_err(dev, "pm_clk_add_clk failed %d\n", ret);
> +                       goto clk_err;
> +               };
> +       }
> +
> +       if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME)) {

Could you elaborate on why you need to do this check here?

When I see a check for IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME), that indicates
to me that we actually have an another issue, perhaps in the PM clk
API.

> +               ret = pm_clk_resume(dev);
> +               if (ret) {
> +                       dev_err(dev, "pm_clk_resume failed %d\n", ret);
> +                       goto clk_err;
> +               };
> +       }
> +       return;
> +
> +clk_err:
> +       pm_clk_destroy(dev);
> +
> +}
> +
> +void rockchip_pm_domain_detach_dev(struct device *dev)
> +{
> +       struct rockchip_domain *pd;
> +
> +       pd = (struct rockchip_domain *)dev->pm_domain;
> +       pd->dev = NULL;
> +
> +       pm_clk_destroy(dev);
> +}
> +

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe
--
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/