From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nm@ti.com (Nishanth Menon) Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 14:55:36 -0500 Subject: [PATCH V2 1/5] Documentation: Add support for TI System Control Interface (TI-SCI) protocol In-Reply-To: <6c63b044-3db9-9202-b790-350a88b9eab0@ti.com> References: <20160830130647.6828-1-nm@ti.com> <20160830130647.6828-2-nm@ti.com> <20160902150628.GA19493@rob-hp-laptop> <57C9E0A8.4010701@ti.com> <6c63b044-3db9-9202-b790-350a88b9eab0@ti.com> Message-ID: <1a382d12-e5d8-7403-6a0f-a1a8a35bd571@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 09/05/2016 02:09 AM, Tero Kristo wrote: > On 02/09/16 23:27, Dave Gerlach wrote: >> On 09/02/2016 12:07 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>> Rob, >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Rob Herring wrote: >>>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2016 at 08:06:43AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>> [...] >>>>> + >>>>> +TI-SCI Client Device Node: >>>>> +======================== >>>>> + >>>>> +Client nodes refer to the required TI-SCI device using the "ti,sci" >>>>> property. >>>> >>>> As I mentioned for power domains, for clients that are self contained >>>> (i.e. a single function) I think the should be child nodes. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for the feedback. I think we should be able to do that and also >>> assume you have no further improvements you'd like to see here. >>> >>> Looking at current Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scpi.txt >>> -> it makes sense to stick along the same lines as you mentioned. >>> >>> Dave, Tero: do you guys have any objections? >> >> No objections, I think this is a logical move. > > Yea, sounds like a valid change. I believe you are going to post a new > version so I can modify the clock driver also accordingly? Just closing the loop here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/9/6/747 posted. the changes are in binding - clk driver itself should'nt by itself have any changes. -- Regards, Nishanth Menon