On Wednesday 19 February 2014, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 18.02.2014, 19:10 +0100 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> > On Tuesday 18 February 2014 16:34:41 Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > > +
> > > +Example of a device that is part of a power domain:
> > > +
> > > + vpu: vpu@02040000 {
> > > + reg = <0x02040000 0x3c000>;
> > > + /* ... */
> > > + fsl,power-domain = <&pd_pu>;
> > > + /* ... */
> > > + };
> > > +
> >
> > I'm really not too happy about platforms starting to add random
> > bindings for power domains. Unfortunately I didn't catch exynos
> > doing this first, but I don't want to see another platform like
> > that.
> >
> > Can we please come up with a proper generic power domain binding
> > first and then add platform specific users?
>
> what is the process here? I've seen the samsung bindings and copied the
> pattern. I guess the Exynos bindings are set in stone, and the i.MX
> power domains can be handled using the same bindings.
* First of all, get the pm domain maintainers into the loop, then make
sure all other users of pm domains are aware of what you are doing.
* Come up with a way to describe a pm_domain in a sufficiently generic
way. It's possible you just need a phandle, but experience on other
subsystems suggests that it helps to allow arguments, as we do for
clocks, dmas, mailboxes, etc.
* Draft a generic binding that can work on all platforms
* Implement support for the generic binding in the platform independent
code.
* Add a specific binding for your hardware.
* Implement support for your hardware binding on top of the generic
code.
* Get everyone involved to Ack the generic binding and implementation.
Arnd
--
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
