On 12/05/2023 09:24, Xingyu Wu wrote: > On 2023/5/12 14:50, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 12/05/2023 08:43, Conor Dooley wrote: >>> On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 08:35:43AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 12/05/2023 04:20, Xingyu Wu wrote: >>>>> From: William Qiu <william.qiu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>>>> + "#power-domain-cells": >>>>> + const: 1 >>>> >>>> Add it to the existing examples. >>>> >>>> This part confuses me... why aon appeared here? Why power-controller >>>> disappeared? I don't think that Rob or me proposed any of this. >>> >>> Rob did actually suggest this, as the power-controller child node had no >>> properties other than #power-domain-cells. >> >> He suggested it for aon, but not for stg or sys... aon is not a child of >> sys, is it? Then why power-controller disappeared from sys? >> > > The power-controller is only for aon, but now just use power-domain-cells instead. > The sys only have the clock-controller child node not power-controller. > And stg has neither. OK, I see. Stuffing all of them in one binding suggests that anything can be anything, but you actually have different devices with different features/roles. Best regards, Krzysztof
