[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120726210952.GG4560@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 22:09:53 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@...com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/14] PM / shmobile: Pass power domain information
via DT (was: Re: [RFD] PM: Device tree representation of power domains)
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 05:38:35PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> That being said, I'm not sure why ti,hwmods is being used as an example
> for powerdomains. hwmods describe the integration of SoC IP blocks
> (base addr, IRQ, DMA channel etc., which are being moved to DT) as well
> as a bunch of SoC specific PM register descriptions. This stuff is
> SoC-specific PM register layout, so being very SoC specific, it has the
> 'ti' prefix in the DT binding.
I think the thing here is that one aspect of that SoC integration is
which power domain the blocks are in. Describing which power domain an
IP is in isn't a million miles away from describing which hwmod applies
to an IP.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists