* Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> [180912 13:47]: > > > 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.
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
