[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220613191549.GA4092455-robh@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 13:15:49 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@...il.com>
Cc: max.krummenacher@...adex.com, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@...adex.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Andrejs Cainikovs <andrejs.cainikovs@...adex.com>,
Biju Das <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Marcel Ziswiler <marcel.ziswiler@...adex.com>,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] power: domain: Add driver for a PM domain
provider which controls
On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 05:08:46PM +0200, Max Krummenacher wrote:
> From: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@...adex.com>
>
> its power enable by using a regulator.
>
> The currently implemented PM domain providers are all specific to
> a particular system on chip.
Yes, power domains tend to be specific to an SoC... 'power-domains' is
supposed to be power islands in a chip. Linux 'PM domains' can be
anything...
> This series adds a PM domain provider driver which enables/disables
> a regulator to control its power state. Additionally, marked with RFC,
> it adds two commits which actually make use of the new driver to
> instantiate a power domain provider and have a number of power
> domain consumers use the power domain.
>
> The perceived use case is to control a common power domain used by
> several devices for which not all device drivers nessesarily have
> a means to control a regulator.
Why wouldn't they have means?
> It also handles the suspend / resume use case for such devices,
> the generic power domain framework will disable the domain once the
> last device has been suspend and will enable it again before resuming
> the first device.
> The generic power domain code handles a power domain consumer
> generically outside of the driver's code. (assuming the 'power-domains'
> property references exactly one power domain).
That's Linux implementation details.
> This allows to use the "regulator-pm-pd" driver with an arbitrary
> device just by adding the 'power-domains' property to the devices
> device tree node. However the device's dt-bindings schema likely does
> not allow the property 'power-domains'.
> One way to solve this would be to allow 'power-domains' globally
> similarly how 'status' and other common properties are allowed as
> implicit properties.
No. For 'power-domains' bindings have to define how many there are and
what each one is.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists