From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulf Hansson Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PM / Domains: Define DT bindings for PM QoS device latencies Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 13:19:36 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1459432226-22562-1-git-send-email-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> <20160401184429.GA18950@rob-hp-laptop> <20160407175704.GA32257@rob-hp-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160407175704.GA32257@rob-hp-laptop> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Kevin Hilman , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Len Brown , Pavel Machek , Geert Uytterhoeven , Lina Iyer , Axel Haslam , Marek Szyprowski , Jon Hunter , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org [...] >> > >> > Shouldn't this be split into latency of the domain (and in the domain's >> > node) and latency of the device? >> >> Yes! $Subject patch only takes device latencies into account. >> >> Perhaps what you mean is that we should document device PM QoS >> latencies in another place than >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt as well? > > Yes, the location is confusing that this is device latency which has > nothing to do with power domains other than the fact we've lost all > state (which a reset could cause too). Okay, will a new file, Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/device_qos.txt make sense for you? > >> Regarding bindings for the domain latencies, I will post that as a >> separate patch soonish. > > It probably makes sense to look at latency bindings as a whole series. Well, unless you insist, I would rather look at this first. The domain latencies might be a bit more complex and those shouldn't affect how we describe device latencies, or you think so? Kind regards Uffe