On 12/09/18 14:32, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@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.
> 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.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
