On Tue, Oct 25 2016 at 09:59 -0600, Sudeep Holla wrote:

On 25/10/16 16:26, Lina Iyer wrote:

quoted

Update domain-idle-state binding to use "domain-idle-state" compatible
from Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/idle-states.txt.

Cc: <redacted>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <redacted>
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt | 9 +++++----
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
index e165036..6fb53a3 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt

@@ -30,8 +30,9 @@ Optional properties:
   available in the next section.

- domain-idle-states : A phandle of an idle-state that shall be soaked into a
-                generic domain power state. The idle state definitions are
-                compatible with arm,idle-state specified in [1].
+                generic domain power state. The idle state definitions must be
+                compatible with "domain-idle-state"

I would reword the below a bit different so that it's flexible to be
reused without "arm,idle-state".

quoted

as well as
+                "arm,idle-state" as defined in [1].

'Idle states that are "arm,idle-state" compatible are generally
"domain-idle-state" compatible as well if it's a PM domain.'

I believe we should have both compatible strings. Per [1], any CPU that
follows the idle state compatible *must* have "arm,idle-state" as a
compatible. Since we are re-using the same compatible, its only correct
that we retain what is already spec'd up in [1] and in addition provide
this new compatible.

Thanks,
Lina

or something like that in line with what's in patch 2/4.

That would give us the scope of reuse of "domain-idle-state" in device
for future. Also it aligns with your patch 4/4.

Otherwise, it looks good.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep