On 02/27/2014 09:38 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 02/27/2014 02:30 PM, Florian Vaussard wrote:
>> Currently, the TWL4030 PMIC does not completely poweroff the processor.
>> Commit b0fc1da4d0359d3cce8f12e0f014aed0704ae202 introduced the necessary
>> binding to do this, so use it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Florian Vaussard <florian.vaussard@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-overo.dtsi | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-overo.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-overo.dtsi
>> index aea64c0..018e1e0 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-overo.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-overo.dtsi
>> @@ -73,6 +73,11 @@
>> codec {
>> };
>> };
>> +
>> + twl_power: power {
>> + compatible = "ti,twl4030-power";
>> + ti,use_poweroff;
>> + };
>> };
>> };
>>
>>
> Urrgh.. this slipped past.. :(
>
> ti,system-power-controller is traditionally used for other PMICs from
> TI to indicate that poweroff functionality will be provided by the
> PMIC driver. similar approach is taken by Maxim as well.. I know the
> commit introducing the binding has been around for long, but
> considering that we do not have a single dts using this yet, should we
> consider adding "ti,system-power-controller"(as against removing
> ti,use_poweroff - so that older down stream dtbs still work) and using
> it in the new code?
>
It does make sense, so I am not against it. My only concern is that I
find the name to be slightly less easy to understand, but I can live
with it :-)
I do not remember if DT maintainers came up with a clear policy to
deprecate a binding.
Regards,
Florian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
