Hi Lorenzo,

On 16.01.2014 17:34, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:

Hi Tomasz,

thank you for posting this series. I would like to use the DT bindings
for power domains in the bindings for C-states on ARM:

http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/41012

and in particular link a given C-state to a given power domain so that the
kernel will have a way to actually check what devices are lost upon C-state
entry (and for devices I also mean CPU peripheral like PMUs, GIC CPU IF,
caches and possibly cpus, all of them already represented with DT nodes).

I have a remark:

-  Can we group device nodes under a single power-domain-parent so that
    all devices defined under that parent won't have to re-define a
    power-domain property (a property like interrupt-parent, so to speak)

What do you think ?

Hmm, I can see potential benefits of such construct on platforms with 
clear hierarchy of devices, but to make sure I'm getting it correctly, 
is the following what you have in mind?

soc-domain-x@12340000 {
	compatible = "...";
	reg = <...>;
	power-domain-parent = <&power_domains DOMAIN_X>;

	device@1000 {
		compatible = "...";
		// inherits power-domain = <&power_domains DOMAIN_X>
	};

	device@2000 {
		compatible = "...";
		// inherits power-domain = <&power_domains DOMAIN_X>
	};
};

Best regards,
Tomasz