On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 12:43 +0800, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 03/13/2013 07:26 PM, Joseph Lo wrote: > > On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 01:34 +0800, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> 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? > >> > > There are still two main features for PMC that we need to define > > bindings/properties in DT. One is power main the other wake up source. > > But we are not there yet. Because I don't have drivers to verify them is > > enough or not. If I add all the bindings right now, I believe it will be > > modify later. > > Since the DT is supposed to be a representation of the HW, and not a > representation of what a particular driver needs, I'm not sue why you'd > need to be able to test a driver before you could design a DT binding. > Because some of the power domain has complicated relation, I am still figuring out how to bind them can make drivers have enough power domain information to do a power control function. Joseph -- 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
