On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:09:10PM +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
> On Friday 09 September 2016 02:17 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >>>>>We had an agreement that keep mmc's pwrseq framework unchanging.
> >>>>>Unless Ulf and rob both agree to change.
> >>>>Why 2 separate approach for same problem ?
> >>>>And I see this as possible duplication of code/functionality :)
> >>>How the new kernel compatibles old dts? If we do not need to
> >>>consider this problem, the mmc can try to use power sequence library
> >>>too in future.
> >>I think we should attempt to get both MMC and USB power seq
> >>come on one agreement, so that it can be reused.
> >That would be nice. Although, to do that you would have to allow some
> >DT bindings to be deprecated in the new generic power seq bindings, as
> >otherwise you would break existing DTBs.
> >I guess that is what Rob was objecting to!?
> yeah, thats right.
> So lets adopt similar implementation for USB as well instead of
> library, but keeping MMC untouched as of now.
> What I am trying to propose here is,
> Lets have power-sequence framework (similar to V1 of this series),
> pwrseq: Core framework for power sequence.
> pwrseq_generic/simple: for all generic control, like reset and clock
> pwrseq_emmc: probably duplication of existing code - the idea
> here is, all future code should be using this new
> binding, so that we can deprecate the
> pwrseq_arche: The usecase which I am dealing with today, which is more
> complex in nature.
> Then the respective drivers can add their drivers (if needed) based on
> comments ??
The key point here is DT maintainer (Rob) doesn't agree with adding new node
for power sequence at dts.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html