From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:38:08 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v4 1/7] Documentation: Add device tree bindings for Freescale i.MX GPC In-Reply-To: <1392802255.3445.18.camel@pizza.hi.pengutronix.de> References: <1392737687-25003-1-git-send-email-p.zabel@pengutronix.de> <2328803.HhaG6blXIR@wuerfel> <1392802255.3445.18.camel@pizza.hi.pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <201402191538.08507.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday 19 February 2014, Philipp Zabel wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 18.02.2014, 19:10 +0100 schrieb Arnd Bergmann: > > On Tuesday 18 February 2014 16:34:41 Philipp Zabel wrote: > > > + > > > +Example of a device that is part of a power domain: > > > + > > > + vpu: vpu at 02040000 { > > > + reg = <0x02040000 0x3c000>; > > > + /* ... */ > > > + fsl,power-domain = <&pd_pu>; > > > + /* ... */ > > > + }; > > > + > > > > I'm really not too happy about platforms starting to add random > > bindings for power domains. Unfortunately I didn't catch exynos > > doing this first, but I don't want to see another platform like > > that. > > > > Can we please come up with a proper generic power domain binding > > first and then add platform specific users? > > what is the process here? I've seen the samsung bindings and copied the > pattern. I guess the Exynos bindings are set in stone, and the i.MX > power domains can be handled using the same bindings. * First of all, get the pm domain maintainers into the loop, then make sure all other users of pm domains are aware of what you are doing. * Come up with a way to describe a pm_domain in a sufficiently generic way. It's possible you just need a phandle, but experience on other subsystems suggests that it helps to allow arguments, as we do for clocks, dmas, mailboxes, etc. * Draft a generic binding that can work on all platforms * Implement support for the generic binding in the platform independent code. * Add a specific binding for your hardware. * Implement support for your hardware binding on top of the generic code. * Get everyone involved to Ack the generic binding and implementation. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] Documentation: Add device tree bindings for Freescale i.MX GPC Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:38:08 +0100 Message-ID: <201402191538.08507.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1392737687-25003-1-git-send-email-p.zabel@pengutronix.de> <2328803.HhaG6blXIR@wuerfel> <1392802255.3445.18.camel@pizza.hi.pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1392802255.3445.18.camel@pizza.hi.pengutronix.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Philipp Zabel Cc: Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Kukjin Kim , Tomasz Figa , Kyungmin Park , Rob Herring , Thomas Abraham , kernel@pengutronix.de, Shawn Guo , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 19 February 2014, Philipp Zabel wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 18.02.2014, 19:10 +0100 schrieb Arnd Bergmann: > > On Tuesday 18 February 2014 16:34:41 Philipp Zabel wrote: > > > + > > > +Example of a device that is part of a power domain: > > > + > > > + vpu: vpu@02040000 { > > > + reg = <0x02040000 0x3c000>; > > > + /* ... */ > > > + fsl,power-domain = <&pd_pu>; > > > + /* ... */ > > > + }; > > > + > > > > I'm really not too happy about platforms starting to add random > > bindings for power domains. Unfortunately I didn't catch exynos > > doing this first, but I don't want to see another platform like > > that. > > > > Can we please come up with a proper generic power domain binding > > first and then add platform specific users? > > what is the process here? I've seen the samsung bindings and copied the > pattern. I guess the Exynos bindings are set in stone, and the i.MX > power domains can be handled using the same bindings. * First of all, get the pm domain maintainers into the loop, then make sure all other users of pm domains are aware of what you are doing. * Come up with a way to describe a pm_domain in a sufficiently generic way. It's possible you just need a phandle, but experience on other subsystems suggests that it helps to allow arguments, as we do for clocks, dmas, mailboxes, etc. * Draft a generic binding that can work on all platforms * Implement support for the generic binding in the platform independent code. * Add a specific binding for your hardware. * Implement support for your hardware binding on top of the generic code. * Get everyone involved to Ack the generic binding and implementation. Arnd