[PATCH 3/4] dt-bindings: Update domain-idle-state binding to use correct compatibles
sudeep.holla at arm.com
Tue Oct 25 09:52:36 PDT 2016
On 25/10/16 17:24, Lina Iyer wrote:
> 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
>>> 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 .
>>> + 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 .
>> '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 , any CPU that
> follows the idle state compatible *must* have "arm,idle-state" as a
Yes that's implicit for a CPU device. But generic power domain bindings
should not have that explicitly as it *can be* used for non CPU device.
> Since we are re-using the same compatible, its only correct
> that we retain what is already spec'd up in  and in addition provide
> this new compatible.
Yes  applies for *CPUs only* while this applies for *any device* and
*any power domain*, so I would drop *must have* "arm,idle-state" here
to keep this generic based on my understanding on how compatibles work.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel