From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: florian.vaussard@epfl.ch (Florian Vaussard)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 21:48:23 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2 3/8] ARM: dts: omap3-overo: Use complete poweroff
In-Reply-To: <530FA23E.1040909@ti.com>
References: <1393533032-1619-1-git-send-email-florian.vaussard@epfl.ch>
 <1393533032-1619-4-git-send-email-florian.vaussard@epfl.ch>
 <530FA23E.1040909@ti.com>
Message-ID: <530FA497.7000407@epfl.ch>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



On 02/27/2014 09:38 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 02/27/2014 02:30 PM, Florian Vaussard wrote:
>> Currently, the TWL4030 PMIC does not completely poweroff the processor.
>> Commit b0fc1da4d0359d3cce8f12e0f014aed0704ae202 introduced the necessary
>> binding to do this, so use it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Florian Vaussard <florian.vaussard@epfl.ch>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-overo.dtsi | 5 +++++
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-overo.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-overo.dtsi
>> index aea64c0..018e1e0 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-overo.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-overo.dtsi
>> @@ -73,6 +73,11 @@
>>  			codec {
>>  			};
>>  		};
>> +
>> +		twl_power: power {
>> +			compatible = "ti,twl4030-power";
>> +			ti,use_poweroff;
>> +		};
>>  	};
>>  };
>>  
>>
> Urrgh.. this slipped past.. :(
> 
> ti,system-power-controller is traditionally used for other PMICs from
> TI to indicate that poweroff functionality will be provided by the
> PMIC driver. similar approach is taken by Maxim as well.. I know the
> commit introducing the binding has been around for long, but
> considering that we do not have a single dts using this yet, should we
> consider adding "ti,system-power-controller"(as against removing
> ti,use_poweroff - so that older down stream dtbs still work) and using
> it in the new code?
> 

It does make sense, so I am not against it. My only concern is that I
find the name to be slightly less easy to understand, but I can live
with it :-)

I do not remember if DT maintainers came up with a clear policy to
deprecate a binding.

Regards,
Florian