[PATCH 3/4] dt-bindings: Update domain-idle-state binding to use correct compatibles

[Lina Iyer]

On Tue, Oct 25 2016 at 09:59 -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
>On 25/10/16 16:26, Lina Iyer wrote:
>>Update domain-idle-state binding to use "domain-idle-state" compatible
>>from Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/idle-states.txt.
>>
>>Cc: <devicetree at vger.kernel.org>
>>Cc: Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org>
>>Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com>
>>Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <lina.iyer at linaro.org>
>>---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 9 +++++----
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>>diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>index e165036..6fb53a3 100644
>>--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>@@ -30,8 +30,9 @@ Optional properties:
>>    available in the next section.
>>
>> - domain-idle-states : A phandle of an idle-state that shall be soaked into a
>>-                generic domain power state. The idle state definitions are
>>-                compatible with arm,idle-state specified in [1].
>>+                generic domain power state. The idle state definitions must be
>>+                compatible with "domain-idle-state"
>
>I would reword the below a bit different so that it's flexible to be
>reused without "arm,idle-state".
>
>>as well as
>>+                "arm,idle-state" as defined in [1].
>
>'Idle states that are "arm,idle-state" compatible are generally
>"domain-idle-state" compatible as well if it's a PM domain.'
>
I believe we should have both compatible strings. Per [1], any CPU that
follows the idle state compatible *must* have "arm,idle-state" as a
compatible. Since we are re-using the same compatible, its only correct
that we retain what is already spec'd up in [1] and in addition provide
this new compatible.

Thanks,
Lina

>or something like that in line with what's in patch 2/4.
>
>That would give us the scope of reuse of "domain-idle-state" in device
>for future. Also it aligns with your patch 4/4.
>
>Otherwise, it looks good.
>
>-- 
>Regards,
>Sudeep