* Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> [140903 11:51]: > On 09/03/2014 01:45 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [140901 09:54]: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Am 25.08.2014 um 23:26 schrieb Tony Lindgren: > >> > >>> * Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [140817 08:46]: > >>>> I am trying to make ti,use_poweroff work on 3.17-rc1 for the GTA04 board. > >>>> Poweroff was broken for a while and I found that the driver isn't loaded at all. > >>>> > >>>> It appears to me that commit e7cd1d1eb16fcdf53001b926187a82f1f3e1a7e6 > >>>> did rename the compatible entry from "ti,twl4030-power" to "ti,twl4030-power-reset" > >>>> but this was not documented in the bindings and of course our DT does not > >>>> match. > >>>> > >>>> Even your commit message talks about "ti,twl4030-power" although I can't find it > >>>> in the code. > >>> > >>> Hmm sorry did I accidentally remove ti,twl4030-power? If so, that should > >>> be added back for sure. Do you have a patch for that already? > >> > >> No, I have only updated our device tree because I don't know if it really should > >> be added back or not. > >> > >> As you say the "ti,twl4030-power" does not configure anything. So what > >> is it good for? > > > > Only for the poweroff if "ti,use_poweroff" is set. Care to do a patch > > as you clearly have a use case to test it with? > > Tony, we were talking about supporting ti,system-power-controller as > the standard way of stating poweroff control is by the PMIC. this > seems to be standard in various SoCs. use_poweroff seems to predate > that standardization. Should'nt we start using > ti,system-power-controller instead? Sure we can add that. But need to keep also parsing "ti,use_poweroff" as it's already in use. Regards, Tony -- 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
