Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: power: Add power-domains-child-ids property

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2026 at 05:19:23PM -0700, Kevin Hilman (TI) wrote:
> Add binding documentation for the new power-domains-child-ids property,
> which works in conjunction with the existing power-domains property to
> establish parent-child relationships between a multi-domain power domain
> provider and external parent domains.
> 
> Each element in the uint32 array identifies the child domain
> ID (index) within the provider that should be made a child domain of
> the corresponding phandle entry in power-domains. The two arrays must
> have the same number of elements.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Hilman (TI) <khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml
> index b1147dbf2e73..a3d2af124d37 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power-domain.yaml
> @@ -68,6 +68,21 @@ properties:
>        by the given provider should be subdomains of the domain specified
>        by this binding.
>  
> +  power-domains-child-ids:
> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32-array
> +    description:
> +      An array of child domain IDs that correspond to the power-domains
> +      property. This property is only applicable to power domain providers
> +      with "#power-domain-cells" > 0 (i.e., providers that supply multiple
> +      power domains). It specifies which of the provider's child domains
> +      should be associated with each parent domain listed in the power-domains
> +      property. The number of elements in this array must match the number of
> +      phandles in the power-domains property. Each element specifies the child
> +      domain ID (index) that should be made a child domain of the corresponding
> +      parent domain. This enables hierarchical power domain structures where
> +      different child domains from the same provider can have different
> +      parent domains.

Okay, I guess we stick with this. Sorry for the detour.

With the example fixed,

Reviewed-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>

Rob