On Sat, 26 Aug 2023 at 19:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 25/08/2023 17:44, Shenwei Wang wrote:
> >>
> >> The genpd provider then needs to be a consumer of the resources it needs. In
> >> this case a couple of regulators it seems like.
> >>
> >
> > If I understood your reply correctly, it seems that the current implementation of
> > regulator-pd is what you have described. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
> >
> > The following are the diff of scu-pd and this regulator-pd.
> >
> > power-controller { power-controller {
> > compatible = "fsl,imx8qxp-scu-pd", "fsl,scu-pd"; | compatible = "regulator-power-domain";
> > #power-domain-cells = <1>; #power-domain-cells = <1>;
> > >
> > > regulator-number = <2>;
> > > regulator-0-supply = <®1>;
> > > regulator-1-supply = <®2>;
> > }; };
> >
> > Are you suggesting to move the regulator-pd to the imx directory and add a company prefix
> > to the compatible string?
>
> There is no such part of iMX processor as such regulator-power-domain,
> so I don't recommend that approach. DTS nodes represent hardware, not
> your SW layers.
I would agree if this was pure SW layers, but I don't think it is. At
least, if I have understood the earlier discussions correctly [1],
there are certainly one or more power-domains here. The power-domains
just happen to be powered through something that can be modelled as a
regular regulator(s). No?
Note that, we already have other power-domains that are consumers of
regulators too.
Kind regards
Uffe
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220609150851.23084-1-max.oss.09@xxxxxxxxx/
