[PATCH RFC v3 3/3] Documentation: arm: define DT idle states bindings

[Mark Brown]

On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 04:34:21PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 01:39:56AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

> > > +	- cache-state-retained
> > > +		Usage: See definition
> > > +		Value type: <none>
> > > +		Definition: if present cache memory is retained on power down,
> > > +			    otherwise it is lost.

> > Might be better to define which caches?

> I do not expect caches in the same power domain to have different retention
> capabilities, so a flag per-state should be enough. If anyone is unhappy
> about this please flag it up. List of caches affected can be retrieved by
> walking the power-domain specifiers and check those against the caches power
> domains.

OK, so it's caches located within the power domains referenced by the
state node?  Might be good to say that say that just for clarity since
the power domains are indirected.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140218/48262059/attachment-0001.sig>