From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Vaussard Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/8] ARM: dts: omap3-overo: Use complete poweroff Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 09:55:47 +0100 Message-ID: <53144393.6050408@epfl.ch> 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> <530FA916.8030001@ti.com> Reply-To: florian.vaussard@epfl.ch Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <530FA916.8030001@ti.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Nishanth Menon , 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 On 02/27/2014 10:07 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > +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. > Ok, so I will drop this patch from the series, so that the other patches can hopefully go into 3.15. I will address this issue separately. Thank you for pointing out this binding issue. Regards, Florian