On 05/12/2023 09:30, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> [231205 08:16]: >> On 05/12/2023 09:10, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> [231205 08:03]: >>>> What does runtime PM have to do with it? If runtime PM enables clocks, >>>> these are real signals and not optional. >>> >>> Runtime PM propagates to the parent device. >> >> Then it is not really relevant to the hardware talk here, unless you put >> this device clocks in parent node, but then it's just wrong hardware >> description. > > No it's not. The interconnect target module may have one or more separate Interconnects are not parents of devices, so I still don't get why do you bring it here. > devices with the same shared clocks. See for example the am3 usb module that > has usb controllers, phys and dma at target-module@47400000 in am33xx.dtsi. There is no interconnect-cells there, so why do we talk about interconnect here? > > Sure the clock nodes can be there for the child IP, but they won't do > anything. And still need to be managed separately by the device driver if > added. So if OS does not have runtime PM, the bindings are wrong? Bindings should not depend on some particular feature of some particular OS. Best regards, Krzysztof
