[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1533574172.2809.11.camel@pengutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2018 18:49:32 +0200
From: Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>
To: Robin Gong <yibin.gong@....com>,
Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@...gutronix.de>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"A.s. Dong" <aisheng.dong@....com>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@....com>,
"linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/6] ARM: imx6q: provide documentation for new
fsl,pmic-stby-poweroff property
Am Montag, den 06.08.2018, 02:34 +0000 schrieb Robin Gong:
> > > > Not all boards follow the reference design, that's a fact of
> > > > life.
> > > >
> > > > Please look at the i.MX6Q reference manual. The sequence
> > > > implemented
> > > > in this patchset can be found as a valid way to power off the
> > > > system
> > > > in
> > > > "60.4.3 Power mode transitions" "Normal ON to OFF with external
> > > > PMIC", so there is hardly any way to argue that this is a board
> > > > specific quirk. This is one of the Freescale/NXP recommended
> > > > sequences to
> >
> > turn off the system.
> >
> > > Okay, but could you add one more comment for this solution? RTC
> > > alarm
> > > and ONOFF Button wakeup feature can't be support in this case.
> >
> > Enough to add it in to changelog? or should it go to the binding
> > documentation?
>
> The binding doc is better.
Sorry, I disagree.
A binding is a way to describe a specific hardware layout, it isn't the
right place to advice a hardware designer on the implications of a
specific hardware implementation. The NXP hardware design guide is a
more suitable place for this information.
We also don't mention in random bindings that the system won't be able
to brew a fresh cup of coffee.
Regards,
Lucas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists