Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] dt-bindings: soc: qcom: Extend RPMh power controller binding to describe thermal warming device

[Ulf Hansson]

On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 21:37, Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> RPMh power controller hosts mx domain that can be used as thermal
> warming device. Add a sub-node to specify this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thara Gopinath <thara.gopinath@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt | 10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt
> index eb35b22..fff695d 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.txt
> @@ -18,6 +18,16 @@ Required Properties:
>  Refer to <dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h> for the level values for
>  various OPPs for different platforms as well as Power domain indexes
>
> += SUBNODES
> +RPMh alsp hosts power domains that can behave as thermal warming device.
> +These are expressed as subnodes of the RPMh. The name of the node is used
> +to identify the power domain and must therefor be "mx".
> +
> +- #cooling-cells:
> +       Usage: optional
> +       Value type: <u32>
> +       Definition: must be 2
> +

Just wanted to express a minor thought about this. In general we use
subnodes of PM domain providers to represent the topology of PM
domains (subdomains), this is something different, which I guess is
fine.

I assume the #cooling-cells is here tells us this is not a PM domain
provider, but a "cooling device provider"?

Also, I wonder if it would be fine to specify "power-domains" here,
rather than using "name" as I think that is kind of awkward!?

>  Example: rpmh power domain controller and OPP table
>
>  #include <dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmhpd.h>
> --
> 2.1.4
>

Kind regards
Uffe