[...]
> >>>>
> >>>> The main concern that was raised on this topic was that we have to
> >>>> somehow link the power-domain to the specific peripherals (the power
> >>>> domain consumer) in the device tree.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that is needed. Although, I don't see how that is a concern?
> >>>
> >>> We already have the valid bindings to use for this, see more below.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Adding the power-domain property there will trigger validation errors
> >>>> unless we do explicitly add the power-domains to the schema for each
> >>>> peripheral we need this. To me this does not really work, but maybe I'm
> >>>> not understanding something.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is what Rob wrote on the topic [1]:
> >>>> > No. For 'power-domains' bindings have to define how many there are and
> >>>> > what each one is.
> >>>>
> >>>> Just as an example from patch [2]:
> >>>>
> >>>> can1: can@0 {
> >>>> compatible = "microchip,mcp251xfd";
> >>>> power-domains = <&pd_sleep_moci>;
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> leads to:
> >>>>
> >>>> imx8mm-verdin-nonwifi-dahlia.dtb: can@0: 'power-domains' does not match any of the regexes: 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
> >>>> From schema: .../bindings/net/can/microchip,mcp251xfd.yaml
> >>>
> >>> I think it should be fine to just add the below line to the DT
> >>> bindings, for each peripheral device to fix the above problem.
> >>>
> >>> power-domains: true
> >>
> >> Again, as Rob said, no, because it must be strictly defined. So for
> >> example: "maxItems: 1" for simple cases. But what if device is then part
> >> of two power domains?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> That should be okay, right?
> >>
> >> Adding it to each peripheral scales poorly. Especially that literally
> >> any device can be part of such power domain.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> >>
> >> If we are going with power domain approach, then it should be applicable
> >> basically to every device or to every device of some class (e.g. I2C,
> >> SPI). This means it should be added to respective core schema in
> >> dtschema repo, in a way it does not interfere with other power-domains
> >> properties (existing ones).
> >
> > Isn't that already taken care of [1]?
>
> No, because it does not define the items (what are the power domains and
> how many). This binding expects that any device has maxItems restricting it.
Right, apologize for my ignorance.
>
> >
> > If there is more than one power domain per device, perhaps we may need
> > to extend it with a more strict binding? But, that doesn't seem to be
> > the case here - and if it turns out to be needed later on, we can
> > always extend the bindings, no?
> >
> > Note also that we already have DT bindings specifying "power-domains:
> > true" to deal with the above. Isn't that what we want?
>
> You mentioned it before and both me and Rob already responded - no,
> because it does not restrict the number of items.
Okay, so maxItems need to be specified for each peripheral. It's not a
big deal, right?
Of course, it would be even easier if the core schema would use a
default "maxItems: 1" for power domain consumers, which of course must
be possible to be overridden for those consumers that need something
else. But perhaps it's not that simple. :-)
Kind regards
Uffe
