Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] dt/bindings: Update binding for PM domain idle states

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 






On 10/10/16 17:43, Lina Iyer wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10 2016 at 09:45 -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote:


On 07/10/16 23:36, Lina Iyer wrote:
Update DT bindings to describe idle states of PM domains.

This patch is based on the original patch by Marc Titinger.

Cc: <devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Marc Titinger <mtitinger+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt     | 38
++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
index 025b5e7..7f8f27e 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
@@ -29,6 +29,10 @@ Optional properties:
   specified by this binding. More details about power domain
specifier are
   available in the next section.

+- domain-idle-states : A phandle of an idle-state that shall be
soaked into a
+                generic domain power state. The idle state
definitions are
+                compatible with arm,idle-state specified in [1].
+

Please do add the following details to the binding. IMO, this binding is
not complete in terms of specification as there are few open questions:

1. What not define a standard compatible instead of "arm,idle-state" ?
  I agree it can be used, but as part of this *generic* binding, IMO
  it's better to have something generic and can be used by devices.
  Otherwise, this binding becomes CPU specific, that too ARM CPU
  specific.

We had gone down this path of having a separate DT bindings for domains
that is not arm,idle-state. See RFC patches. But the binding did closely
match this and it so was suggested that we use arm,idle-state which is
already defined.


Are you referring to [1] here ? Sorry, I did some search quickly and
could find this, wanted to check if I am looking at the right one ?

--
Regards,
Sudeep

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-June/353261.html
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux