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

[Ulf Hansson]

On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 at 15:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 30/03/2026 15:30, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Patch 2 yes. Patch 4 not. That's why I did not take patch 2.
>
> >
> > Why shouldn't the bindings go along with the driver changes here?
>
> Patch #2 is pmdomain, so with pmdomain drivers thus your tree. Patch #4
> is not pmdomain, so not with pmdomain drivers, so not your tree... At
> least I do not see any pmdomain parts in that patch #4. It's a Samsung
> SoC PMU driver and none of further driver patches touch that PMU driver.

Yes, you are right that the PMU driver isn't touched.

Although, the PMU DT description added in patch3 and extended in
patch4, allows power-domain providers to be described in its child
nodes. Those child nodes use the same compatible string as the
power-domain providers described in patch2.

Kind regards
Uffe