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"?
