From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lina.iyer@linaro.org (Lina Iyer) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:48:46 -0600 Subject: [PATCH v3 3/8] PM / Domains: Allow domain power states to be read from DT In-Reply-To: <6ed96121-5040-474d-2d71-7927e8567c50@arm.com> References: <1476467276-75094-1-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> <1476467276-75094-4-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> <6ed96121-5040-474d-2d71-7927e8567c50@arm.com> Message-ID: <20161024164846.GE72940@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Sudeep, On Mon, Oct 24 2016 at 07:39 -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > >On 14/10/16 18:47, Lina Iyer wrote: >>This patch allows domains to define idle states in the DT. SoC's can >>define domain idle states in DT using the "domain-idle-states" property >>of the domain provider. Add API to read the idle states from DT that can >>be set in the genpd object. >> >>This patch is based on the original patch by Marc Titinger. >> >>Signed-off-by: Marc Titinger >>Signed-off-by: Ulf Hansson >>Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer >>--- >> drivers/base/power/domain.c | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/linux/pm_domain.h | 8 ++++ >> 2 files changed, 102 insertions(+) >> >>diff --git a/drivers/base/power/domain.c b/drivers/base/power/domain.c >>index 37ab7f1..9af75ba 100644 >>--- a/drivers/base/power/domain.c >>+++ b/drivers/base/power/domain.c >>@@ -1916,6 +1916,100 @@ out: >> return ret ? -EPROBE_DEFER : 0; >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(genpd_dev_pm_attach); >>+ >>+static const struct of_device_id idle_state_match[] = { >>+ { .compatible = "arm,idle-state", }, >>+ { } >>+}; >>+ > >I still think it's better to have another compatible to serve this >purpose. We don't want to end up creating genpd domains just because >they are "arm,idle-state" compatible IMO ? > >I agree you can prevent it checking for OSC mode support in the >firmware. But I want to understand if you have any strong reasons for >avoiding that approach. > Why are you still held up with OSI/PC PSCI modes? I repeat again this series is not about any of that, it is just about PM domains. PM domains have idle states and the idle-state description is similar in definition to arm,idle-state and therefore uses the same compatible. There is no point re-defining something that already exists in the kernel. I was able to find the original thread, where we discussed this [1]. I suggest, you read about PM domains and its idle states and understand this series in the context of PM domains. Thanks, Lina [1]. http://www.serverphorums.com/read.php?12,1303996