Re: [PATCH v3 8/8] PM / doc: Update device documentation for devices in IRQ safe PM domains

[Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>]

On Fri, Oct 21 2016 at 07:07 -0600, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 7:47 PM, Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Update documentation to reflect the changes made to support IRQ safe PM
>> domains.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@linaro.org>
>> Acked-by: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  Documentation/power/devices.txt | 9 ++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/power/devices.txt b/Documentation/power/devices.txt
>> index 8ba6625..0401b53 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/power/devices.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/power/devices.txt
>> @@ -607,7 +607,14 @@ individually.  Instead, a set of devices sharing a power resource can be put
>>  into a low-power state together at the same time by turning off the shared
>>  power resource.  Of course, they also need to be put into the full-power state
>>  together, by turning the shared power resource on.  A set of devices with this
>> -property is often referred to as a power domain.
>> +property is often referred to as a power domain. A power domain may also be
>> +nested inside another power domain.
>> +
>> +Devices and PM domains may be defined as IRQ-safe, if they can be powered
>> +on/off even when the IRQs are disabled. An IRQ-safe device in a domain will
>> +disallow power management on the domain, unless the domain is also defined as
>> +IRQ-safe. The restriction this framework imposes on the parent domain of an
>> +IRQ-safe domain is that it must also be defined as IRQ-safe.
>
>I would put this paragraph below, before the last paragraph in the section.
>
OK.

>Also I suppose that a domain should only be defined as "IRQ-safe" if
>all of the devices in it are "IRQ-safe" (or there will be problems at
>least in principle).  If that is the case, it should be stated clearly
>in the paragraph you are adding as well.
>
Will add.

Thanks,
Lina