From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Menon Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] ARM: dts: omap3-overo: Use complete poweroff Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 15:07:34 -0600 Message-ID: <530FA916.8030001@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> <530FA497.7000407@epfl.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <530FA497.7000407@epfl.ch> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org To: florian.vaussard@epfl.ch, Tony Lindgren , Benoit Cousson Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org +devicetree list. On 02/27/2014 02:48 PM, Florian Vaussard wrote: > 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 >>> --- >>> 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. I dont think we can depreciate a binding [1] - as you mentioned - renaming the property is probably what is appropriate, but introducing a new one which has the same behavior as the old one does'nt seem covered either.. considering potential downstream kernel usage, I'd suggest additional property inline with today's convention. [1] http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=2a9330010bea5982a5c6593824bc036bf62d67b7 -- Regards, Nishanth Menon