From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi) Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:33:22 +0000 Subject: [PATCH RFC v2 2/2] Documentation: arm: define DT C-states bindings In-Reply-To: <20140122114232.GB20247@sirena.org.uk> References: <1390240079-6495-1-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <1390240079-6495-3-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <20140121133148.GB28801@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20140122114232.GB20247@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <20140122163322.GF24288@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 11:42:32AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 01:31:48PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:16:46AM +0000, Vincent Guittot wrote: > > > > > + - psci-power-state > > > > + Usage: Required if entry-method property value is set to > > > > + "psci". > > > > + Value type: > > > > + Definition: power_state parameter to pass to the PSCI > > > > + suspend call to enter the C-state. > > > > Why psci has got a dedicated field and not vendor methods ? can't you > > > make that more generic ? > > > If anyone provides me with an example usage why not, for now I know I > > need that parameter for PSCI, I can call it differently, define it for PSCI > > and leave it as optional for other methods. > > Would it not be sensible to define a PSCI binding that extends this and > other bindings - ISTR some other properties getting scattered into > bindings for it? You mean adding the properties in the PSCI bindings instead of defining them here ? Let me think about this, I really reckon these are C-state specific properties that belong in here (but actually I have to add a statement related to PSCI - ie bindings require a PSCI node to be present and valid), I will look into this. Thank you, Lorenzo