On 05-11-20, 11:34, Ulf Hansson wrote: > I am not objecting about scaling the voltage through a regulator, > that's fine to me. However, encoding a power domain as a regulator > (even if it may seem like a regulator) isn't. Well, unless Mark Brown > has changed his mind about this. > > In this case, it seems like the regulator supply belongs in the > description of the power domain provider. Okay, I wasn't sure if it is a power domain or a regulator here. Btw, how do we identify if it is a power domain or a regulator ? > > In case of Qcom earlier (when we added the performance-state stuff), > > the eventual hardware was out of kernel's control and we didn't wanted > > (allowed) to model it as a virtual regulator just to pass the votes to > > the RPM. And so we did what we did. > > > > But if the hardware (where the voltage is required to be changed) is > > indeed a regulator and is modeled as one, then what Dmitry has done > > looks okay. i.e. add a supply in the device's node and microvolt > > property in the DT entries. > > I guess I haven't paid enough attention how power domain regulators > are being described then. I was under the impression that the CPUfreq > case was a bit specific - and we had legacy bindings to stick with. > > Can you point me to some other existing examples of where power domain > regulators are specified as a regulator in each device's node? No, I thought it is a regulator here and not a power domain. -- viresh
