Re: (subset) [PATCH v8 00/10] pmdomain: samsung: add support for Google GS101

[Ulf Hansson]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 at 13:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 30/03/2026 13:12, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Although, as I said, if you think it's best to funnel them through
> >>> your tree, please do and then share them via an immutable branch, so I
> >>> can apply the pmdomain driver changes.
> >>
> >> soc must go via my tree, but there is no reason to take the pmdomain
> >> binding patch. So I did not take.
> >
> > Yes, they belong to soc/platform, which is common for most
> > power-domain providers.
>
> What does belong to soc/platform? pmdomain changes? No, they do not...

I think you may have misunderstood me here. I was referring to the DT
bindings that describe power domain providers.

Generally speaking, these are often provided via some
SOC/platform-specific hardware (like a PMU for example).

>
> >
> > To allow us to merge/maintain power-domain provider *driver* changes
> > separately, we needed a way to manage the corresponding DT bindings.
>
> Nothing stops that, there is no dependency. For a week I am saying there
> are no dependencies. If there are, please provide any sort of
> argument/proof, otherwise there is nothing to do here.
>
> > That's why I am hosting the immutable "dt" branch for these, which
> > soc/platform maintainers can pull-in when they need it.
> >
> > Of course, doing it the other way around is also possible. Just let me
> > know what you prefer.
>
> Nothing like that is necessary.

Usually we want bindings to go along with their respective drivers on
a subsystem basis.

Both patch2 and patch4 updates DT bindings for the power-domain providers.

Why shouldn't the bindings go along with the driver changes here?

Kind regards
Uffe