From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 01/10] dt-bindings: omap: add new binding for PRM instances Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 06:16:32 -0700 Message-ID: <20190903131632.GL52127@atomide.com> References: <20190830121816.30034-1-t-kristo@ti.com> <20190830121816.30034-2-t-kristo@ti.com> <20190902042631.GA22055@bogus> <7c2c8a4d-d24e-ceec-afc1-04cdc4d5d952@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7c2c8a4d-d24e-ceec-afc1-04cdc4d5d952@ti.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Tero Kristo Cc: Rob Herring , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Philipp Zabel , Santosh Shilimkar , linux-omap , "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org * Tero Kristo [190903 08:15]: > On 03/09/2019 11:10, Rob Herring wrote: > > I prefer that bindings be complete as possible even if driver support > > is not there yet. Adding power domain support may only mean adding > > '#power-domain-cells'. > > > > The location is fine then. > > Yeah, I assume just adding power-domain-cells should be enough. I am not too > sure before I start trying this out though so did not want to add it yet. Should we call the device tree node name power-controller instead of reset controller though? Most of the PRM instances do not have a separate rstctrl reset control functionality. Anybody got better any better naming in mind? Regards, Tony