From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 18:19:21 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 5/8] dt/bindings: Update binding for PM domain idle states In-Reply-To: <20161010164342.GC44885@linaro.org> References: <1475879821-8035-1-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> <1475879821-8035-6-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> <4e55d6ad-8de7-72d7-7512-5e4ff2aabc79@arm.com> <20161010164342.GC44885@linaro.org> Message-ID: <09dce7fd-6757-12ad-1900-573bf75b27a4@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/10/16 17:43, Lina Iyer wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10 2016 at 09:45 -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> >> On 07/10/16 23:36, Lina Iyer wrote: >>> Update DT bindings to describe idle states of PM domains. >>> >>> This patch is based on the original patch by Marc Titinger. >>> >>> Cc: >>> Signed-off-by: Marc Titinger >>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson >>> Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer >>> Acked-by: Rob Herring >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 38 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt >>> index 025b5e7..7f8f27e 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt >>> @@ -29,6 +29,10 @@ Optional properties: >>> specified by this binding. More details about power domain >>> specifier are >>> available in the next section. >>> >>> +- domain-idle-states : A phandle of an idle-state that shall be >>> soaked into a >>> + generic domain power state. The idle state >>> definitions are >>> + compatible with arm,idle-state specified in [1]. >>> + >> >> Please do add the following details to the binding. IMO, this binding is >> not complete in terms of specification as there are few open questions: >> >> 1. What not define a standard compatible instead of "arm,idle-state" ? >> I agree it can be used, but as part of this *generic* binding, IMO >> it's better to have something generic and can be used by devices. >> Otherwise, this binding becomes CPU specific, that too ARM CPU >> specific. >> > We had gone down this path of having a separate DT bindings for domains > that is not arm,idle-state. See RFC patches. But the binding did closely > match this and it so was suggested that we use arm,idle-state which is > already defined. > Are you referring to [1] here ? Sorry, I did some search quickly and could find this, wanted to check if I am looking at the right one ? -- Regards, Sudeep [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-June/353261.html