On 25/04/2023 09:57, Changhuang Liang wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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-aon-pmu >>>> >>>> I was speaking to Rob about this over the weekend, he asked: >>>> 'Why isn't "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon" just the power-domain provider >>>> itself?' >>> >>> Maybe not, this syscon only offset "0x00" configure power switch. >>> other offset configure other functions, maybe not power, so this >>> "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon" not the power-domain itself. >>> >>>> Do we actually need to add a new binding for this at all? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Conor. >>>> >>> >>> Maybe this patch do that. >>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230414024157.53203-6-xingyu.wu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> This makes it a child-node right? I think Rob already said no to that in >> and earlier revision of this series. What he meant the other day was >> making the syscon itself a power domain controller, since the child node >> has no meaningful properties (reg, interrupts etc). >> >> Cheers, >> Conor. > > Yes, "starfive,jh7110-aon-pmu" is a child-node of "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon". > In my opinion, "0x17010000" is "aon-syscon" on JH7110 SoC, and this "aon-pmu" is just > a part of "aon-syscon" function, so I think it is inappropriate to make "aon-syscon" > to a power domain controller. I think using the child-node description is closer to > JH7110 SoC. Unfortunately, I do not see the correlation between these, any connection. Why being a child of syscon block would mean that this should no be power domain controller? Really, why? These are two unrelated things. Best regards, Krzysztof
