On Thursday 19 June 2014 15:04:50 Ulf Hansson wrote: > +Power sequence DT bindings > + > +Each power sequence method has a corresponding "power-method" property string. > +This property shall be set in a subnode for a device. That subnode should also > +describe resourses which are specific to that power method. > + > +Do note, power sequences as such isn't encoded through DT. Instead those are > +implemented by each power method. > + > +Required subnode properties: > +- power-method: should contain the string for the power method to bind. > + > + Supported power methods: None. > + > +Example: > + > +Note, the "clock" power method in this example isn't actually supported, but > +used to visualize how a childnode could be described. I'm not too thrilled about adding another top-level concept for these. This seems to duplicate some things that pm-domains do, but does them in a somewhata different way. Would it be possible to instead integrate it into the pm-domain code? I also agree with Olof that having a standalone child device node is not the best representation. If you want to represent an SDIO device device that has some references to clocks, regulators, etc, then put that device into the tree and give it those properties. That would also let you worry about the sequencing in driver code rather than trying to come up with a completely generic model for it. 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
