On 12/09/18 12:19, Keerthy wrote: > > > On Wednesday 12 September 2018 04:32 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> >> On 12/09/18 05:09, Keerthy wrote: >>> Introuduce linux generic suspend states supported properties. >>> It is convenient for the generic suspend path to have >>> the knowledge of the suspend states supported based on the >>> device tree properties based on which it can either be suspended >>> or safely bailed out of suspend if none of the suspend states >>> are supported. >>> >> >> NACK for any bindings that are linux specific. The suspend feature is so >> platform dependent that I see no need for generic Linux bindings for the >> same. > > suspend to mem and suspend to disk are pretty generic states and i agree > implementation is platform dependent so why not have properties that > convey if they are supported? > We already have power domains and idle states for that. If you need to restrict few states on some platform for whatever reasons, just disable those states. I don't see the need to add any more bindings for the same. > Is the disagreement over making the properties being linux specific? > Yes. -- Regards, Sudeep
