From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: d-gerlach@ti.com (Dave Gerlach) Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 15:27:20 -0500 Subject: [PATCH V2 1/5] Documentation: Add support for TI System Control Interface (TI-SCI) protocol In-Reply-To: References: <20160830130647.6828-1-nm@ti.com> <20160830130647.6828-2-nm@ti.com> <20160902150628.GA19493@rob-hp-laptop> Message-ID: <57C9E0A8.4010701@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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. Regards, Dave > > > --- > Regards, > Nishanth Menon >