On Thu, Dec 21, 2023 at 09:10:28AM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 at 09:03, Dmitry Baryshkov > <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 at 05:51, Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > In some designs the SoC's VDD_GFX pads are supplied by an external > > > regulator, rather than a power-domain. Allow this to be described in the > > > GPU clock controller binding. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <quic_bjorande@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml | 3 +++ > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml > > > index f369fa34e00c..013ef78d2b31 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml > > > @@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ properties: > > > power-domains: > > > maxItems: 1 > > > > > > + vdd-gfx-supply: > > > + description: Regulator supply for the VDD_GFX pads > > > + > > > '#clock-cells': > > > const: 1 > > > > I think it might be good to restrict this property to a particular > > platform (via if:not:properties:compatible:contains > > then:properties:vdd-gfx-supply:false). > > After reading the last patches in the series, there is another > suggestion. Maybe we should explicitly say that there should be either > power-domains or vdd-gfx-supply, but not both. > Even on this platform it's not a property of the SoC, but surrounding design. So I like this proposal. Thanks, Bjorn
