Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] ARM: Exynos: add support for sub-power domains

[Kevin Hilman]

Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Hello,
>
> On 2014-12-03 13:36, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Hi Marek,
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Marek Szyprowski
>> <m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/exynos/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/exynos/power_domain.txt
>>> index abde1ea8a119..b884358ebb1a 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/exynos/power_domain.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/exynos/power_domain.txt
>>> @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ Optional Properties:
>>>          - pclkN, clkN: Pairs of parent of input clock and input clock to the
>>>                  devices in this power domain. Maximum of 4 pairs (N = 0 to 3)
>>>                  are supported currently.
>>> +- samsung,power-domain: phandle to a master power domain that the given domain
>>> +                      is a part of
>> For new DTSes I'd recommend using the generic "power-domains" only.
>
> I think that some consistency in dts style will be really an added
> value. In my opinion for
> all existing DTSes we should keep using 'samsung,power-domain' (even
> for defining a parent
> power domains) and for all new DTSes, the generic 'power-domains'
> binding should be used.

Or even better, convert the existing DTSs to use generic power-domain
first, and then use generic ones going forward also.

Kevin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/