On 06/10/2021 17:59, Hector Martin wrote: > On 06/10/2021 16.05, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> + IP cores belonging to a power domain should contain a >>> + "power-domains" property that is a phandle for the >>> + power domain node representing the domain. >> >> Skip this last paragraph - it is obvious in usage of power domains. >> Specific bindings should not duplicate generic knowledge. > > Ack, I'll drop it. > >>> +properties: >>> + $nodename: >>> + pattern: "^power-controller@[0-9a-f]+$" >> >> Usually we call nodes as power-domain. > > I had it as that originally, but these aren't power domains. These are > power management domains (they can clock *and* power gate separately, > where supported) plus also do reset management. So I wasn't sure if it > was really fair calling them "power-domain" at that point. OK, thanks for explanation. > >>> + power-domains: >>> + description: >>> + Reference to parent power domains. A domain may have multiple parents, >>> + and all will be powered up when it is powered. >> >> How many items? > > One or more (if there are none the property should not exist). I guess > that should be encoded. Probably this should not go without any constraints. Are you sure it could have more than one? It would mean more than one parent. Best regards, Krzysztof
