Hi Lorenzo,
On 16.01.2014 17:34, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
Hi Tomasz,
thank you for posting this series. I would like to use the DT bindings
for power domains in the bindings for C-states on ARM:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/41012
and in particular link a given C-state to a given power domain so that the
kernel will have a way to actually check what devices are lost upon C-state
entry (and for devices I also mean CPU peripheral like PMUs, GIC CPU IF,
caches and possibly cpus, all of them already represented with DT nodes).
I have a remark:
- Can we group device nodes under a single power-domain-parent so that
all devices defined under that parent won't have to re-define a
power-domain property (a property like interrupt-parent, so to speak)
What do you think ?
Hmm, I can see potential benefits of such construct on platforms with
clear hierarchy of devices, but to make sure I'm getting it correctly,
is the following what you have in mind?
soc-domain-x@12340000 {
compatible = "...";
reg = <...>;
power-domain-parent = <&power_domains DOMAIN_X>;
device@1000 {
compatible = "...";
// inherits power-domain = <&power_domains DOMAIN_X>
};
device@2000 {
compatible = "...";
// inherits power-domain = <&power_domains DOMAIN_X>
};
};
Best regards,
Tomasz
--
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
