On 12 October 2018 at 12:13, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:43:11AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> On 11 October 2018 at 18:41, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > [...] > >> > Yes, nearly there. Just thought good to add a note that the representation >> > has no affinity towards any PSCI idle state mechanism(PC or OSI). So >> > that it's never assumed or misunderstood. >> >> I understand your point. However, I think the following sentence still >> makes sense (exist in the suggest change above). >> >> "In PSCI firmware v1.0, the OS-Initiated mode is introduced. In order >> to use it, the hierarchical representation must be used." >> >> How about if I add: "For the default platform-coordinated mode, both >> representations are viable options." >> > I would also add couple of things, how about this order: > > In PSCI firmware v1.0, the OS-Initiated mode is introduced. However the > flattened vs hierarchical DT representation of power domains is orthogonal > to OS-Initiated vs platform-coordinated PSCI CPU suspend modes and > should be considered independent of each other. > > The hierarchical representation helps and makes it easy to implement > OSI mode and OS implementations may choose to mandate it. > > For the default platform-coordinated mode, both representations are > viable options. This looks great! I am adding it to the next version, thanks! Kind regards Uffe
