Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] dt-bindings: arm: add support for SCMI Regulators

[Sudeep Holla]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 07:06:07PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 01:55:14PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>
> > I'm a bit worried that now we're changing CPUs (at least?) from clocks
> > to 'performance domains' while at the same time here we're adding
> > low level, virtual regulators. Are we going to end up wanting something
> > more abstract here too?

Valid concern and I too am with the same opinion. However as Mark Brown
points out this was added to just satisfy some exiting consumers that
rely on regulators.

I had or still argue that we need a way to check if this is not getting
misused with devices like CPUs. I was thinking of some check with DT where
such properties are not allowed in certain device type.

>
> My understanding is that this is aimed at systems which have done the
> more abstract thing where regulators just aren't visible at all to the
> kernel but then find that they actually need to control some of the
> regulators explicitly for things like MMC so need a mechanism for the
> firmware to expose select regulators.

Thanks Mark for the explaining this, saved me time 😄.

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep