On 10 November 2016 at 20:58, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 12:14:28PM +0100, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On 3 November 2016 at 22:54, Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Re-using idle state definition provided by arm,idle-state for domain > > > idle states creates a lot of confusion and limits further evolution of > > > the domain idle definition. To keep things clear and simple, define a > > > idle states for domain using a new compatible "domain-idle-state". > > > > > > Fix existing PM domains code to look for the newly defined compatible. > > > > > > Cc: <devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../bindings/power/domain-idle-state.txt | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > .../devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 8 +++--- > > > drivers/base/power/domain.c | 2 +- > > > 3 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/domain-idle-state.txt > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/domain-idle-state.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/domain-idle-state.txt > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..eefc7ed > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/domain-idle-state.txt > > > @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ > > > +PM Domain Idle State Node: > > > + > > > +A domain idle state node represents the state parameters that will be used to > > > +select the state when there are no active components in the domain. > > > + > > > +The state node has the following parameters - > > > + > > > +- compatible: > > > + Usage: Required > > > + Value type: <string> > > > + Definition: Must be "domain-idle-state". > > > + > > > +- entry-latency-us > > > + Usage: Required > > > + Value type: <prop-encoded-array> > > > + Definition: u32 value representing worst case latency in > > > + microseconds required to enter the idle state. > > > + The exit-latency-us duration may be guaranteed > > > + only after entry-latency-us has passed. > > > > As we anyway are going to change this, why not use an u64 and have the > > value in ns instead of us? > > I can't imagine that you would need more resolution or range. For times > less than 1us, s/w and register access times are going to dominate the > time. Yep. > > > Unless there is a real need, I'd keep alignment with the existing > binding. Agree! Kind regards Uffe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
