On 12/23/24 17:09, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 23/12/2024 13:55, Michal Wilczynski wrote:
>> + compatible:
>> + const: thead,th1520-pd
>> +
>> + "#power-domain-cells":
>> + const: 1
>> +
>> +additionalProperties: false
>> +
>> +required:
>> + - compatible
>> + - "#power-domain-cells"
>> +
>> +examples:
>> + - |
>> + firmware {
>
> Drop
>
>> + aon: aon {
>> + compatible = "thead,th1520-aon";
>> + mboxes = <&mbox_910t 1>;
>> + mbox-names = "aon";
>
> Drop aon node... but the main problem is you do not have any resources
> in your power-domain device node, assuming your binding is complete.
> This suggests that this is part of aon, not separate device. Fold the
> device node into its parent (so everything goes to AON).
Merging everything to AON node would definitely work. I was looking at
the other implementations of firmware protocols for example, and that's
how I figured the current implementation:
arch/arm/boot/dts/broadcom/bcm2835-rpi.dtsi
soc {
firmware: firmware {
compatible = "raspberrypi,bcm2835-firmware", "simple-mfd";
mboxes = <&mailbox>;
firmware_clocks: clocks {
compatible = "raspberrypi,firmware-clocks";
#clock-cells = <1>;
};
};
power: power {
compatible = "raspberrypi,bcm2835-power";
firmware = <&firmware>;
#power-domain-cells = <1>;
};
};
This is fairly similar, as the firmware is passed as property, instead
as in a parent-child relationship. Would you consider it more canonical
?
I would be happy to merge everything to AON node, and merge the
power-domain driver and AON driver together, but it seemed to me like
those could use some separation, and since power-domain and the AON
represent actual HW it's fine to represent them in the device tree.
Thanks,
Michał
>
>> +
>> + pd: power-domain {
>> + compatible = "thead,th1520-pd";
>> + #power-domain-cells = <1>;
>> + };
>> + };
>> + };
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
