| Message ID | 20180207134553.13510-2-brgl@bgdev.pl (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 02/07/2018 07:45 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > > Add a simple document for the DaVinci genpd driver. We use clock pm > exclusively hence no reg property. > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> > --- > .../devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt | 13 +++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..935d063c7b35 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ > +Device tree bindings for the genpd driver for Texas Instruments DaVinci SoCs > + > +Required properties: > + > +- compatible: must be "ti,davinci-pm-domains" > +- #power-domain-cells: must be 0 > + > +Example: > + > +pwc1: power-controller@227000 { > + compatible = "ti,davinci-pm-domains"; > + #power-domain-cells = <0>; > +}; > We already have the PSC @227000. Why not just add #power-domain-cells = <0>; to that node instead of creating a new "device" when this is really the same device?
2018-02-07 22:47 GMT+01:00 David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>: > On 02/07/2018 07:45 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> >> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> >> >> Add a simple document for the DaVinci genpd driver. We use clock pm >> exclusively hence no reg property. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt | 13 >> +++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt >> >> diff --git >> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..935d063c7b35 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt >> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ >> +Device tree bindings for the genpd driver for Texas Instruments DaVinci >> SoCs >> + >> +Required properties: >> + >> +- compatible: must be "ti,davinci-pm-domains" >> +- #power-domain-cells: must be 0 >> + >> +Example: >> + >> +pwc1: power-controller@227000 { >> + compatible = "ti,davinci-pm-domains"; >> + #power-domain-cells = <0>; >> +}; >> > > > We already have the PSC @227000. Why not just add > #power-domain-cells = <0>; to that node instead of creating > a new "device" when this is really the same device? I thought about it too, but then noticed that most architectures do use a separate genpd driver even if it only calls routines placed in their respective clock driver. Let me prepare a v2 with this approach though. Thanks, Bartosz
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> writes: > 2018-02-07 22:47 GMT+01:00 David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>: >> On 02/07/2018 07:45 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >>> >>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> >>> >>> Add a simple document for the DaVinci genpd driver. We use clock pm >>> exclusively hence no reg property. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> >>> --- >>> .../devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt | 13 >>> +++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) >>> create mode 100644 >>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt >>> >>> diff --git >>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt >>> new file mode 100644 >>> index 000000000000..935d063c7b35 >>> --- /dev/null >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt >>> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ >>> +Device tree bindings for the genpd driver for Texas Instruments DaVinci >>> SoCs >>> + >>> +Required properties: >>> + >>> +- compatible: must be "ti,davinci-pm-domains" >>> +- #power-domain-cells: must be 0 >>> + >>> +Example: >>> + >>> +pwc1: power-controller@227000 { >>> + compatible = "ti,davinci-pm-domains"; >>> + #power-domain-cells = <0>; >>> +}; >>> >> >> >> We already have the PSC @227000. Why not just add >> #power-domain-cells = <0>; to that node instead of creating >> a new "device" when this is really the same device? > > I thought about it too, but then noticed that most architectures do > use a separate genpd driver even if it only calls routines placed in > their respective clock driver. > > Let me prepare a v2 with this approach though. Yes, I agree with David. Just making the PSC be a power-controller is a good approach. Kevin
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..935d063c7b35 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +Device tree bindings for the genpd driver for Texas Instruments DaVinci SoCs + +Required properties: + +- compatible: must be "ti,davinci-pm-domains" +- #power-domain-cells: must be 0 + +Example: + +pwc1: power-controller@227000 { + compatible = "ti,davinci-pm-domains"; + #power-domain-cells = <0>; +};