On 2023/4/25 17:35, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 05:18:10PM +0800, Changhuang Liang wrote: >> >> >> On 2023/4/25 16:19, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> 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 >>> >> >> Let me summarize what has been discussed above. >> >> There has two ways to describe this "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon"(0x17010000). >> 1. (0x17010000) is power-controller node: >> >> aon_pwrc: power-controller@17010000 { >> compatible = "starfive,jh7110-aon-pmu", "syscon"; >> reg = <0x0 0x17010000 0x0 0x1000>; >> #power-domain-cells = <1>; >> }; >> >> >> 2. (0x17010000) is syscon node, power-controller is child-node of syscon: >> >> aon_syscon: syscon@17010000 { >> compatible = "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon", "syscon", "simple-mfd"; >> reg = <0x0 0x17010000 0x0 0x1000>; >> >> aon_pwrc: power-controller { >> compatible = "starfive,jh7110-aon-pmu"; >> #power-domain-cells = <1>; >> }; >> }; > > I thought that Rob was suggesting something like this: > aon_syscon: syscon@17010000 { > compatible = "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon", ... > reg = <0x0 0x17010000 0x0 0x1000>; > #power-domain-cells = <1>; > }; > > Cheers, > Conor. > I see the kernel: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8167.dtsi this file line 42: it's power-controller also has no meaningful properties. What do you think?
