Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hello, > > On 2014-12-03 13:36, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> Hi Marek, >> >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Marek Szyprowski >> <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/exynos/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/exynos/power_domain.txt >>> index abde1ea8a119..b884358ebb1a 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/exynos/power_domain.txt >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/exynos/power_domain.txt >>> @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ Optional Properties: >>> - pclkN, clkN: Pairs of parent of input clock and input clock to the >>> devices in this power domain. Maximum of 4 pairs (N = 0 to 3) >>> are supported currently. >>> +- samsung,power-domain: phandle to a master power domain that the given domain >>> + is a part of >> For new DTSes I'd recommend using the generic "power-domains" only. > > I think that some consistency in dts style will be really an added > value. In my opinion for > all existing DTSes we should keep using 'samsung,power-domain' (even > for defining a parent > power domains) and for all new DTSes, the generic 'power-domains' > binding should be used. Or even better, convert the existing DTSs to use generic power-domain first, and then use generic ones going forward also. Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |