Re: [PATCH 3/4] dt-bindings: Update domain-idle-state binding to use correct compatibles

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

 






On 25/10/16 17:24, Lina Iyer wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25 2016 at 09:59 -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote:


On 25/10/16 16:26, Lina Iyer wrote:
Update domain-idle-state binding to use "domain-idle-state" compatible
from Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/idle-states.txt.

Cc: <devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 9 +++++----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
index e165036..6fb53a3 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
@@ -30,8 +30,9 @@ Optional properties:
   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].
+                generic domain power state. The idle state
definitions must be
+                compatible with "domain-idle-state"

I would reword the below a bit different so that it's flexible to be
reused without "arm,idle-state".

as well as
+                "arm,idle-state" as defined in [1].

'Idle states that are "arm,idle-state" compatible are generally
"domain-idle-state" compatible as well if it's a PM domain.'

I believe we should have both compatible strings. Per [1], any CPU that
follows the idle state compatible *must* have "arm,idle-state" as a
compatible.

Yes that's implicit for a CPU device. But generic power domain bindings
should not have that explicitly as it *can be* used for non CPU device.

Since we are re-using the same compatible, its only correct
that we retain what is already spec'd up in [1] and in addition provide
this new compatible.


Yes [1] applies for *CPUs only* while this applies for *any device* and
*any power domain*, so I would drop *must have* "arm,idle-state" here
to keep this generic based on my understanding on how compatibles work.

--
Regards,
Sudeep
--
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