Hi Bin,
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 00:03, Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 11:40 AM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Intel x86 SoCs have a power manager/controller which handles several power-related aspects of the platform. Add a uclass for this, with a few useful operations.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Changes in v3:
- Rename power-mgr uclass to acpi-pmc
Changes in v2: None
drivers/power/Kconfig | 2 + drivers/power/acpi_pmc/Kconfig | 25 +++ drivers/power/acpi_pmc/Makefile | 5 + drivers/power/acpi_pmc/acpi-pmc-uclass.c | 191 +++++++++++++++++++++++ include/dm/uclass-id.h | 1 + include/power/acpi_pmc.h | 185 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 6 files changed, 409 insertions(+) create mode 100644 drivers/power/acpi_pmc/Kconfig create mode 100644 drivers/power/acpi_pmc/Makefile create mode 100644 drivers/power/acpi_pmc/acpi-pmc-uclass.c create mode 100644 include/power/acpi_pmc.h
[..]
+int pmc_init(struct udevice *dev) +{
const struct acpi_pmc_ops *ops = acpi_pmc_get_ops(dev);int ret;pmc_fill_pm_reg_info(dev);if (!ops->init)return -ENOSYS;ret = ops->init(dev);if (ret)return log_msg_ret("Failed to init pmc", ret);+#ifdef DEBUG
pmc_dump_info(dev);+#endif
return 0;+}
I wonder shouldn't this be covered by the probe() method?
This is called at present from SPL to read information that is not needed in TPL. In effect the PMC is mostly just used for info in TPL, so we don't want to
We could have a check in the probe() function and do different things in TPL, but at the moment I feel that it is worth having an 'init' function which actually sets things up when needed.
[..]
[snip]
Regards, Bin