* Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [190401 18:39]:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 10:52:45 -0700
> Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > * Keerthy <j-keerthy@xxxxxx> [190322 17:16]:
> > > +static int am43xx_check_off_mode_enable(void)
> > > +{
> > > + /*
> > > + * Check for am437x-sk-evm which due to HW design cannot support
> > > + * this mode reliably.
> > > + */
> > > + if (of_machine_is_compatible("ti,am437x-sk-evm") && enable_off_mode) {
> > > + pr_warn("WARNING: This platform does not support off-mode, entering DeepSleep suspend.\n");
> > > + return 0;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return enable_off_mode;
> > > +}
> >
> > Considering off-mode suspend depends on how the board is
> > wired for various things such as memory, PMIC and the related
> > signal lines, I agree using the machine compatible is the best
> > check we can do here.
> >
> > But since the device can hang during suspend unless things are
> > configured right for the board, I suggest you rather list allowed
> > boards here that are known to work with off-mode.
> >
> Could we somehow describe this property of the hardware
> (is-offmode-capable or is-wired-for-offmode) as a separate devicetree
> property of the soc?
>
> In mmc we have for example "cap-power-off-card" for
> indicating some is-wired-suitable-for thing.
And we also have "regulator-off-in-suspend".
How about "soc-off-in-suspend" for the generic name?
> That looks to be clearer as looking for some strange conditions
> derived from something.
>
> I have still my offmode patch os the boilerplate...
Care to send a binding patch to devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
for that?
And then when it gets acked, we can just start using it :)
Regards,
Tony
