On 02/27/2014 09:38 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 02/27/2014 02:30 PM, Florian Vaussard wrote: >> Currently, the TWL4030 PMIC does not completely poweroff the processor. >> Commit b0fc1da4d0359d3cce8f12e0f014aed0704ae202 introduced the necessary >> binding to do this, so use it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Florian Vaussard <[email protected]> >> --- >> arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-overo.dtsi | 5 +++++ >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-overo.dtsi >> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-overo.dtsi >> index aea64c0..018e1e0 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-overo.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-overo.dtsi >> @@ -73,6 +73,11 @@ >> codec { >> }; >> }; >> + >> + twl_power: power { >> + compatible = "ti,twl4030-power"; >> + ti,use_poweroff; >> + }; >> }; >> }; >> >> > Urrgh.. this slipped past.. :( > > ti,system-power-controller is traditionally used for other PMICs from > TI to indicate that poweroff functionality will be provided by the > PMIC driver. similar approach is taken by Maxim as well.. I know the > commit introducing the binding has been around for long, but > considering that we do not have a single dts using this yet, should we > consider adding "ti,system-power-controller"(as against removing > ti,use_poweroff - so that older down stream dtbs still work) and using > it in the new code? >
It does make sense, so I am not against it. My only concern is that I find the name to be slightly less easy to understand, but I can live with it :-) I do not remember if DT maintainers came up with a clear policy to deprecate a binding. Regards, Florian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
