On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 09:57:35AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 25/10/16 21:49, Kevin Hilman wrote: > > Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > 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(-) > > > > With no current users for this, I don't see the point of adding a > > compatible now. > > > > IMO, this should wait and be added with the identified user we can > > discuss it then. > > > > No, IMO it needs to be used for the proposed SoC idle/genpd solution. > > I understand the nodes that are "arm,idle-state" compatible can be used > for this new SoC hierarchical idle management, but it was never defined > for that use originally. So this new feature must be advertised by the > firmware with the presence of "domain-idle-state". > > Yes we might have other ways to detect that but I have already seen that > broken on the reference platform, so we need alternate/DT way to specify > that. > > Not all existing "arm,idle-state" compatible nodes will be capable of > supporting this new SoC idle feature. It's just better and safer for a > new feature getting added that relies on DT to have a new compatible. Or perhaps you should describe something new rather than trying to graft in what's there. This combination of compatible strings looks a bit odd to me. Though, I've not really spent much time thinking about this. Rob -- 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
