On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 at 12:32, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > >
> > > If not, there are two other options that can be considered I think.
> > > *) Using the genpd on/off notifiers, to really allow the consumer
> > > driver of the reset-control to know when the PM domain gets turned
> > > on/off.
> > > **) Move the entire reset handling into the PM domain provider, as it
> > > obviously knows when the domain is getting turned on/off.
> >
> > This option is what I've explored, tested on my side.
> >
> > I explored it in 2 ways:
> >
> > 1/ SYSC modeled as an individual PM domain provider (this is more
> > appropriate to how HW manual described the hardware) with this the PHY
> > reset DT node would have to get 2 PM domains handlers (one for the
> > current PM domain provider and the other one for SYSC):
> >
> > + phyrst: usbphy-ctrl@11e00000 {
> > + compatible = "renesas,r9a08g045-usbphy-ctrl";
> > + reg = <0 0x11e00000 0 0x10000>;
> > + clocks = <&cpg CPG_MOD R9A08G045_USB_PCLK>;
> > + resets = <&cpg R9A08G045_USB_PRESETN>;
> > + power-domain-names = "cpg", "sysc";
> > + power-domains = <&cpg R9A08G045_PD_USB_PHY>, <&sysc
> > R9A08G045_SYSC_PD_USB>;
> > + #reset-cells = <1>;
> > + status = "disabled";
> > +
> > + usb0_vbus_otg: regulator-vbus {
> > + regulator-name = "vbus";
> > + };
> > + };
> > +
>
> According to what you have described earlier/above, modelling the SYSC
> as a PM domain provider seems like a better description of the HW to
> me. Although, as I said earlier, if you prefer the reset approach, I
> would not object to that.
Following the discussion I believe I should take this back. If I
understand correctly, SYSC signal seems best to be modelled as a
reset.
Although, it looks like the USB PM domain provider should rather be
the consumer of that reset, instead of having the reset being consumed
by the consumers of the USB PM domain.
Did that make sense?
[...]
Kind regards
Uffe
