lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] dt-bindings: power: Introduce suspend states supported properties
* Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> [180912 13:47]:
>
>
> On 12/09/18 14:32, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> [180912 11:41]:
> >> On 12/09/18 12:19, Keerthy wrote:
> >>> suspend to mem and suspend to disk are pretty generic states and i agree
> >>> implementation is platform dependent so why not have properties that
> >>> convey if they are supported?
> >>>
> >>
> >> We already have power domains and idle states for that. If you need to
> >> restrict few states on some platform for whatever reasons, just disable
> >> those states. I don't see the need to add any more bindings for the same.
> >
> > Oh do you mean the "domain-idle-states" property as mentioned in the
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt?
> >
>
> Yes, exactly that.

OK

> > Yeah that should do and the DOMAIN_PWR_DN and DOMAIN_RET can be SoC
> > specific and then the board can select which ones to use depending on
> > how things are wired for GPIOs, memory, PMIC and so on.
> >
>
> All the idle-states are platform specific. DOMAIN_RET and DOMAIN_PWR_DN
> are just examples used in the bindings.
>
> > Hmm I don't see any users for this binding though?
> >
>
> It was added specifically to deal with such SoC idles states or
> hierarchical CPU power domains states, no users in upstream yet. But IMO
> it fits what $subject is trying to address.

OK great thanks for confirming that.

Regards,

Tony

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-12 16:02    [W:0.040 / U:1.876 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site