[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84300997-31f8-b36e-e54e-876c266fc953@starfivetech.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:20:31 +0800
From: Changhuang Liang <changhuang.liang@...rfivetech.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
CC: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@...il.dk>,
Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Walker Chen <walker.chen@...rfivetech.com>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/7] dt-bindings: power: Constrain properties for
JH7110 PMU
On 2023/4/12 19:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 12/04/2023 11:42, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:51:16PM +0800, Changhuang Liang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2023/4/12 16:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2023 08:47, Changhuang Liang wrote:
>>>>> When use "starfive,jh7110-pmu-dphy" compatible, do not need the reg and
>>>>> interrupts properties.
>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> description: |
>>>>> StarFive JH7110 SoC includes support for multiple power domains which can be
>>>>> @@ -17,6 +18,7 @@ properties:
>>>>> compatible:
>>>>> enum:
>>>>> - starfive,jh7110-pmu
>>>>> + - starfive,jh7110-pmu-dphy
>>>>
>>>> You do here much more than commit msg says.
>>>>
>>>> Isn'y DPHY a phy? Why is it in power?
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, I will add more description. This is a power framework used to turn on/off
>>> DPHY. So it in power, not a phy.
I found something wrong with my description here, not turn on/off DPHY,
is turn on/off DPHY power switch.
>>
>> Perhaps tie it less to its role w/ the phy, and more to do with its
>> location, say "jh7110-aon-pmu"?
>> There's already "aon"/"sys"/"stg" stuff used in clock-controller and
>> syscon compatibles etc.
>>
>> Krzysztof, what do you think of that? (if you remember the whole
>> discussion we previously had about using those identifiers a few weeks
>> ago).
>
> Depends whether this is the same case or not. AFAIR, for AON/SYS/STG
> these were blocks with few features, not only clock controller.
>
> This sounds like just phy. Powering on/off phy is still a job of phy
> controller... unless it is a power domain controller.
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
So, next version the compatible can be changed to "jh7110-aon-pmu"?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists