On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:39:15AM +0100, Neil Zhang wrote: > > > > I will prepare another patch to add DT description under PMU since > > > > there is no generic power domain support for pm notifier if no other > > > concerns. > > > > We can change the manner if there is generic power domain support > > > > for > > > pm notifier later. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > No, please don't add any DT bindings for power domains specific to PMU > > > node. > > > We can't change the DT bindings once added. > > > > > > As I pointed out the DT bindings for generic power domains are under > > > discussion. > > > See if you can reuse it, if not help in extending it so that it can be used. > > > > > > > Sorry for reply later. > > As I said before the under discussed generic power domain is not suitable for > > CPU peripherals since they are all known belong to CPU or cluster power > > domain. > > If we want to follow the way they are discussion, we need to register core > > and cluster power provider, and need vfp/gic/pmu etc to require them. > > Is it really suitable? > > > Do you have any comments? > If no, I would like to put it under PMU node. Sudeep is a better person to comment than me, but I'd still rather this was handled more generically as opposed to a PMU-specific hack. I don't see a problem including GIC and VFP here, but only when we actually need to save/restore them (i.e. what the hardware guys went crazy with the power domains). Will -- 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
