From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: t-kristo@ti.com (Tero Kristo) Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 10:09:10 +0300 Subject: [PATCH V2 1/5] Documentation: Add support for TI System Control Interface (TI-SCI) protocol In-Reply-To: <57C9E0A8.4010701@ti.com> References: <20160830130647.6828-1-nm@ti.com> <20160830130647.6828-2-nm@ti.com> <20160902150628.GA19493@rob-hp-laptop> <57C9E0A8.4010701@ti.com> Message-ID: <6c63b044-3db9-9202-b790-350a88b9eab0@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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? -Tero