On Tue, Jun 05, 2018 at 02:24:39PM +0530, Abhishek wrote: > > > On 06/04/2018 05:15 PM, Akshay Adiga wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 07:04:14PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > Is this a new property ? I'm not fan of adding yet another of those > > > silly arrays. > > > > > > I would say this is the right time now to switch over to a node per > > > state instead, as we discussed with Vaidy. > > It is not a new property. Name was being used for description as description > was not present in device tree. A skiboot patch adding description to device > tree have been posted. This patch reads those description instead of copying > name itself into description. And we fall back to reading name into > description to not break the comaptibility with older firmware.
>From a cpuidle point of view this is a exisiting property, but for powernv there was no device-tree property describing this. Abhishek has added the following skiboot patch for adding description for each idle state in device-tree . https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/924879/ I agree this can go into new device tree format which each idle state as a node. Probably i will roll this patch into mine in the next version. > > Thanks > Abhishek > > > I posted the node based device tree here : > > skiboot patch : https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/923120/ > > kernel patch : https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/5/30/1146 > > > > Do you have any inputs for this design ? > > > > > Additionally, while doing that, we can provide the versioning mechanism > > > I proposed so we can deal with state specific issues and erratas. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Ben. > > > >