On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 09:47:03 AM Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 10 November 2016 at 20:58, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 12:14:28PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > >> On 3 November 2016 at 22:54, Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > Re-using idle state definition provided by arm,idle-state for domain > >> > idle states creates a lot of confusion and limits further evolution of > >> > the domain idle definition. To keep things clear and simple, define a > >> > idle states for domain using a new compatible "domain-idle-state". > >> > > >> > Fix existing PM domains code to look for the newly defined compatible. > >> > > >> > Cc: <devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Cc: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > --- > >> > .../bindings/power/domain-idle-state.txt | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> > .../devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 8 +++--- > >> > drivers/base/power/domain.c | 2 +- > >> > 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/domain-idle-state.txt > >> > > >> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/domain-idle-state.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/domain-idle-state.txt > >> > new file mode 100644 > >> > index 0000000..eefc7ed > >> > --- /dev/null > >> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/domain-idle-state.txt > >> > @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ > >> > +PM Domain Idle State Node: > >> > + > >> > +A domain idle state node represents the state parameters that will be used to > >> > +select the state when there are no active components in the domain. > >> > + > >> > +The state node has the following parameters - > >> > + > >> > +- compatible: > >> > + Usage: Required > >> > + Value type: <string> > >> > + Definition: Must be "domain-idle-state". > >> > + > >> > +- entry-latency-us > >> > + Usage: Required > >> > + Value type: <prop-encoded-array> > >> > + Definition: u32 value representing worst case latency in > >> > + microseconds required to enter the idle state. > >> > + The exit-latency-us duration may be guaranteed > >> > + only after entry-latency-us has passed. > >> > >> As we anyway are going to change this, why not use an u64 and have the > >> value in ns instead of us? > > > > I can't imagine that you would need more resolution or range. For times > > less than 1us, s/w and register access times are going to dominate the > > time. > > > > Unless there is a real need, I'd keep alignment with the existing > > binding. > > Rob, are you fine with this? I thought it would be great to get this > in for 4.10 rc1. Rob, any objections here? Thanks, Rafael -- 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
