On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 21:37, Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > RPMh power controller hosts mx domain that can be used as thermal > warming device. Add a sub-node to specify this. > > Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt | 10 ++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt > index eb35b22..fff695d 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt > @@ -18,6 +18,16 @@ Required Properties: > Refer to <dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h> for the level values for > various OPPs for different platforms as well as Power domain indexes > > += SUBNODES > +RPMh alsp hosts power domains that can behave as thermal warming device. > +These are expressed as subnodes of the RPMh. The name of the node is used > +to identify the power domain and must therefor be "mx". > + > +- #cooling-cells: > + Usage: optional > + Value type: <u32> > + Definition: must be 2 > + Just wanted to express a minor thought about this. In general we use subnodes of PM domain providers to represent the topology of PM domains (subdomains), this is something different, which I guess is fine. I assume the #cooling-cells is here tells us this is not a PM domain provider, but a "cooling device provider"? Also, I wonder if it would be fine to specify "power-domains" here, rather than using "name" as I think that is kind of awkward!? > Example: rpmh power domain controller and OPP table > > #include <dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmhpd.h> > -- > 2.1.4 > Kind regards Uffe
