On 14/07/2022 14:28, Tinghan Shen wrote: > The System Control Processor System (SCPSYS) has several power > management related tasks in the system. Add the bindings for it. > > Signed-off-by: Tinghan Shen <tinghan.shen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > .../bindings/mfd/mediatek,scpsys.yaml | 62 +++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,scpsys.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,scpsys.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,scpsys.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..a8b9220f2f27 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/mediatek,scpsys.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,62 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/mediatek,scpsys.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: MediaTek System Control Processor System > + > +maintainers: > + - MandyJH Liu <mandyjh.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > + > +description: > + MediaTek System Control Processor System (SCPSYS) has several > + power management tasks. The tasks include MTCMOS power > + domain control, thermal measurement, DVFS, etc. > + > +properties: > + compatible: > + items: > + - const: mediatek,scpsys > + - const: syscon > + - const: simple-mfd > + > + reg: > + maxItems: 1 > + > + power-controller: > + $ref: /schemas/power/mediatek,power-controller.yaml# > + > +required: > + - compatible > + - reg > + > +additionalProperties: false > + > +examples: > + - | > + #include <dt-bindings/clock/mt8195-clk.h> > + #include <dt-bindings/power/mt8195-power.h> > + > + syscon@10006000 { > + compatible = "mediatek,scpsys", "syscon", "simple-mfd"; This should be a SoC-specific compatible (and filename). > + reg = <0x10006000 0x100>; > + > + spm: power-controller { I think you created before less-portable, quite constrained bindings for power controller. You now require that mt8195-power-controller is always a child of some parent device which will share its regmap/MMIO with it. And what if in your next block there is no scpsys block and power controller is the scpsys alone? It's not possible with your bindings. Wouldn't it be better to assign some address space to the power-controller (now as an offset from scpsys)? This is just wondering (Rockchip did the same...) and not a blocker as power-controller bindings are done. Best regards, Krzysztof
