[PATCH v4 1/7] Documentation: Add device tree bindings for Freescale i.MX GPC

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 19 February 2014, Philipp Zabel wrote:

> Am Dienstag, den 18.02.2014, 19:10 +0100 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> > On Tuesday 18 February 2014 16:34:41 Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > > +
> > > +Example of a device that is part of a power domain:
> > > +
> > > +       vpu: vpu at 02040000 {
> > > +               reg = <0x02040000 0x3c000>;
> > > +               /* ... */
> > > +               fsl,power-domain = <&pd_pu>;
> > > +               /* ... */
> > > +       };
> > > +
> > 
> > I'm really not too happy about platforms starting to add random
> > bindings for power domains. Unfortunately I didn't catch exynos
> > doing this first, but I don't want to see another platform like
> > that.
> > 
> > Can we please come up with a proper generic power domain binding
> > first and then add platform specific users?
> 
> what is the process here? I've seen the samsung bindings and copied the
> pattern. I guess the Exynos bindings are set in stone, and the i.MX
> power domains can be handled using the same bindings.

* First of all, get the pm domain maintainers into the loop, then make
  sure all other users of pm domains are aware of what you are doing.

* Come up with a way to describe a pm_domain in a sufficiently generic
  way. It's possible you just need a phandle, but experience on other
  subsystems suggests that it helps to allow arguments, as we do for
  clocks, dmas, mailboxes, etc.

* Draft a generic binding that can work on all platforms

* Implement support for the generic binding in the platform independent
  code.

* Add a specific binding for your hardware.

* Implement support for your hardware binding on top of the generic
  code.

* Get everyone involved to Ack the generic binding and implementation.

	Arnd