On 12/09/18 14:32, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> [180912 11:41]: >> On 12/09/18 12:19, Keerthy wrote: >>> suspend to mem and suspend to disk are pretty generic states and i agree >>> implementation is platform dependent so why not have properties that >>> convey if they are supported? >>> >> >> We already have power domains and idle states for that. If you need to >> restrict few states on some platform for whatever reasons, just disable >> those states. I don't see the need to add any more bindings for the same. > > Oh do you mean the "domain-idle-states" property as mentioned in the > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt? > Yes, exactly that. > Yeah that should do and the DOMAIN_PWR_DN and DOMAIN_RET can be SoC > specific and then the board can select which ones to use depending on > how things are wired for GPIOs, memory, PMIC and so on. > All the idle-states are platform specific. DOMAIN_RET and DOMAIN_PWR_DN are just examples used in the bindings. > Hmm I don't see any users for this binding though? > It was added specifically to deal with such SoC idles states or hierarchical CPU power domains states, no users in upstream yet. But IMO it fits what $subject is trying to address. -- Regards, Sudeep
