2018-02-07 22:47 GMT+01:00 David Lechner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 02/07/2018 07:45 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>
>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Add a simple document for the DaVinci genpd driver. We use clock pm
>> exclusively hence no reg property.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt | 13
>> +++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt
>>
>> diff --git
>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..935d063c7b35
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
>> +Device tree bindings for the genpd driver for Texas Instruments DaVinci
>> SoCs
>> +
>> +Required properties:
>> +
>> +- compatible: must be "ti,davinci-pm-domains"
>> +- #power-domain-cells: must be 0
>> +
>> +Example:
>> +
>> +pwc1: power-controller@227000 {
>> + compatible = "ti,davinci-pm-domains";
>> + #power-domain-cells = <0>;
>> +};
>>
>
>
> We already have the PSC @227000. Why not just add
> #power-domain-cells = <0>; to that node instead of creating
> a new "device" when this is really the same device?
I thought about it too, but then noticed that most architectures do
use a separate genpd driver even if it only calls routines placed in
their respective clock driver.
Let me prepare a v2 with this approach though.
Thanks,
Bartosz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
