From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751536AbbAVJ0U (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:26:20 -0500 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([192.55.52.115]:26971 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750758AbbAVJ0N (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jan 2015 04:26:13 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,448,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="665723540" Message-ID: <1421918770.31903.111.camel@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] PMC driver: Add Cherrytrail PMC interface From: Andy Shevchenko To: "Li, Aubrey" Cc: x86@kernel.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" , "Kumar P, Mahesh" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 11:26:10 +0200 In-Reply-To: <54C07641.7090706@linux.intel.com> References: <1421790603-30097-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <1421790603-30097-5-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <54C07641.7090706@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 12:02 +0800, Li, Aubrey wrote: > On 2015/1/21 5:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > The patch adds CHT PMC interface. This exposes all the South IP device power > > states and S0ix states for CHT. The bit map of FUNC_DIS and D3_STS_0 registers > > for SoCs are consistent. The D3_STS_1 and FUNC_DIS_2 registers, however, are > > not aligned. This is fixed by splitting a common mapping on per register basis. > > > Should we define the bit map table completely separate for different > platforms? My concern is, when D3_STS_0 and FUNC_DIS becomes not > consistent in a new SoC, the implementation in this patch has to be > rewritten completely. > > Defining entire bit map table for different platform introduces > reduplicated bit definitions, but when we add a new platform in future, > we don't need to consider the existing platforms definition, and no need > to change code structure any longer. > > Thoughts? > But this what I did by introducing pmc_reg_map structure per SoC. You may or may not use previous definitions. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy