On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 at 18:35, Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2023 4:27 AM > > To: Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@xxxxxxx> > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Conor Dooley <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; > > Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx>; Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>; > > imx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@xxxxxxx> > > Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: power: Add regulator-pd yaml file > > > > Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or > > opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report this > > email' button > > > > > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 at 17:35, Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Documenting the regulator power domain properties and usage examples. > > > > As Rob and Krzysztof already pointed out, I agree that this binding looks a bit > > questionable. > > > > Rather than adding a new DT binding, why can't we just use the existing way of > > describing a platform specific power-domain provider? > > Can you please provide more details on how you thought we should implement this > feature using the existing way? Very appreciate if you could provide a simple example. > > > This still looks platform specific to me. > > What does platform specific exactly mean here? I want to make sure I understand > what you were referring to. There are plenty of examples of how a platform specific genpd provider looks in DT. You may have a look a imx platforms for example. git grep "#power-domain-cells" arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/imx The genpd provider then needs to be a consumer of the resources it needs. In this case a couple of regulators it seems like. [...] Kind regards Uffe
