On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 05:38:56PM +0100, Luca Weiss wrote: > Add the compatibles and indexes for the rpmpd in MSM8974, both with the > standard PM8841+PM8941 PMICs but also devices found with PMA8084. > > Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml | 2 ++ > include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h | 7 +++++++ > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml > index 2ff246cf8b81..929b7ef9c1bc 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml > @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ properties: > - qcom,msm8917-rpmpd > - qcom,msm8939-rpmpd > - qcom,msm8953-rpmpd > + - qcom,msm8974-rpmpd > + - qcom,msm8974pro-pma8084-rpmpd > - qcom,msm8976-rpmpd > - qcom,msm8994-rpmpd > - qcom,msm8996-rpmpd This is maybe more something for the DT reviewers to decide but I wonder if it is a bit confusing/misleading to describe one particular PMIC with a generic compatible, and the other with a more specific one. Perhaps it would be clearer to include the PMIC name in both compatibles, i.e. "qcom,msm8974-pm8941-rpmpd" instead of "qcom,msm8974-rpmpd". The "qcom,msm8974-rpmpd" compatible could be maybe added as fallback. While it wouldn't be used for matching in the (Linux) driver the DT binding itself *is* "compatible" between the two PMICs because they both have the same power domain indexes. i.e. compatible = "qcom,msm8974-pm8941-rpmpd", "qcom,msm8974-rpmpd"; compatible = "qcom,msm8974pro-pma8084-rpmpd", "qcom,msm8974-rpmpd"; Thanks, Stephan
