Subject: [PATCH v15 2/7] power: add power sequence library

From: [email-masked] (Peter Chen)
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:53:39 +0800

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 12:24:42PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> [...]
> 
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * of_pwrseq_on - Carry out power sequence on for device node
> > + *
> > + * @np: the device node would like to power on
> > + *
> > + * Carry out a single device power on.  If multiple devices
> > + * need to be handled, use of_pwrseq_on_list() instead.
> > + *
> > + * Return a pointer to the power sequence instance on success,
> > + * or an error code otherwise.
> > + */
> > +struct pwrseq *of_pwrseq_on(struct device_node *np)
> > +{
> > +       struct pwrseq *pwrseq;
> > +       int ret;
> > +
> > +       pwrseq = pwrseq_find_available_instance(np);
> > +       if (!pwrseq)
> > +               return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> 
> In case the pwrseq instance hasn't been registered yet, then there is
> no way to deal with -EPROBE_DEFER properly here.
> 
> I haven't been following the discussions in-depth during all
> iterations, so perhaps you have already discussed why doing it like
> this.

Yes, it has been discussed. In order to compare with compatible string
at dts, we need to have one registered pwrseq instance for each
pwrseq library, this pre-registered one is allocated using
postcore_initcall, and the new (eg, second) instance is registered
after pwrseq_get has succeeded.

Peter

> 
> Anyway, that means all pwrseq instances needs to be registered an
> early boot level, to be safe. To me, that seems like poor design
> choice.
> 
> Otherwise I think this looks okay to me.
> 

-- 

Best Regards,
Peter Chen