On 19/02/2024 14:11, Michal Simek wrote: > > > On 2/17/24 09:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 16/02/2024 10:42, Michal Simek wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2/16/24 10:19, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 16/02/2024 09:51, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>> RTC has its own power domain on Xilinx Versal SOC that's why describe it as >>>>> optional property. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/rtc/xlnx,zynqmp-rtc.yaml | 3 +++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>> >>>> But Versal is not described in this binding, is it? I see only one >>>> compatible. >>> >>> It is the same IP only as is on zynqmp with own power rail. >> >> Then you should have separate compatible, because they are not >> identical. It would also allow you to narrow the domains to versal and >> also require it (on versal). > > I can double check with HW guys but I am quite sure IP itself is exactly the > same. What it is different is that there is own power domain to it (not shared > one as is in zynqmp case). What does it mean shared one? If several devices share power domain, then they all should have power-domains property. > > Also Linux is non secure sw and if secure firmware won't allow to change setting > of it it can't be required. I am just saying that Linux doesn't need to be owner > of any power domain that's why it shouldn't be required property. Best regards, Krzysztof
