[PATCH RFC v3 3/3] Documentation: arm: define DT idle states bindings
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <hidden>
Date: 2014-02-17 16:34:21
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-pm
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2014-02-17 · Re: [PATCH RFC v3 3/3] Documentation: arm: define DT idle states bindings · Lorenzo Pieralisi <hidden>
- 2014-02-15 · Re: [PATCH RFC v3 3/3] Documentation: arm: define DT idle states bindings · Sebastian Capella <hidden>
- 2014-02-14 · Re: [PATCH RFC v3 3/3] Documentation: arm: define DT idle states bindings · Lorenzo Pieralisi <hidden>
- 2014-02-14 · Re: [PATCH RFC v3 3/3] Documentation: arm: define DT idle states bindings · Sebastian Capella <hidden>
- 2014-02-13 · Re: [PATCH RFC v3 3/3] Documentation: arm: define DT idle states bindings · Lorenzo Pieralisi <hidden>
On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 01:39:56AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: [...]
quoted
+ - cache-state-retained + Usage: See definition + Value type: <none> + Definition: if present cache memory is retained on power down, + otherwise it is lost.Might be better to define which caches?
I do not expect caches in the same power domain to have different retention capabilities, so a flag per-state should be enough. If anyone is unhappy about this please flag it up. List of caches affected can be retrieved by walking the power-domain specifiers and check those against the caches power domains. Thanks, Lorenzo