On 03/13/2013 12:04 AM, Joseph Lo wrote: ... > BTW, I want to mention one thing about PMC DT bindings. Because I can't > add all of the PMC DT bindings in one time, the PMC is related to too > many devices to work for runtime PM and power domain control. And some > wake up sources control for deep sleep mode (LP0). They are still under > developing for upstream. May I add more bindings for PMC later? With DT you are supposed to define the complete DT binding for the HW up front. There have been some hints that incrementally defining bindings will start to get push-back. How hard is it in this case to simply define the entire binding right now? That said, in practice, you can certainly incrementally define bindings at the moment. The main issue here is to ensure that when you add the new properties/..., then: a) You don't change anything that's already there. The old properties and content must continue to work without modification. b) For all nodes/properties that are newly required, either there is a suitable default if they are missing from the DT (as they would be for DTs written to the old specification), /or/ the new nodes/properties only enable new features, so that any old DT continues to work fine with at least as many features as it always did. If you satisfy those conditions, I believe we can still get away with incrementally defining bindings. I don't know how long that will last though. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
