On 1 April 2016 at 20:44, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 03:50:25PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> PM QoS device latencies are properties of the hardware. Let's define some >> DT bindings for them. >> >> Suggested-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 6 ++++++ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt >> index 025b5e7..b101a20 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt >> @@ -65,12 +65,18 @@ Required properties: >> - power-domains : A phandle and PM domain specifier as defined by bindings of >> the power controller specified by phandle. >> >> +Optional properties: >> + - suspend-latency: Suspend latency of the device in ns. >> + - resume-latency: Resume latency of the device in ns. > > The names are a bit Linux specific, but I don't have a better > suggestion. Could be power-up/down, but then you may have other > latencies such as link up times. > > Whatever we end up with, add a unit suffix (-ns). Okay. > > Shouldn't this be split into latency of the domain (and in the domain's > node) and latency of the device? Yes! $Subject patch only takes device latencies into account. Perhaps what you mean is that we should document device PM QoS latencies in another place than Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt as well? Regarding bindings for the domain latencies, I will post that as a separate patch soonish. [...] Kind regards Uffe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
