Re: [PATCH v1 01/15] dt-bindings: add pwrseq device tree bindings

[Srinivas Kandagatla]

On 02/11/2021 15:26, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 28/10/2021 00:53, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 9:42 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
> > <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On 26/10/2021 15:53, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 06:53:53AM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > > Add device tree bindings for the new power sequencer subsystem.
> > > > > Consumers would reference pwrseq nodes using "foo-pwrseq" properties.
> > > > > Providers would use '#pwrseq-cells' property to declare the amount of
> > > > > cells in the pwrseq specifier.
> > > >
> > > > Please use get_maintainers.pl.
> > > >
> > > > This is not a pattern I want to encourage, so NAK on a common binding.
> > >
> > >
> > > Could you please spend a few more words, describing what is not
> > > encouraged? The whole foo-subsys/#subsys-cells structure?
> >
> > No, that's generally how common provider/consumer style bindings work.
> >
> > > Or just specifying the common binding?
> >
> > If we could do it again, I would not have mmc pwrseq binding. The
> > properties belong in the device's node. So don't generalize the mmc
> > pwrseq binding.
> >
> > It's a kernel problem if the firmware says there's a device on a
> > 'discoverable' bus and the kernel can't discover it. I know you have
> > the added complication of a device with 2 interfaces, but please,
> > let's solve one problem at a time.

Just to keep this topic updated with some pointers [1] to changes done 
to solve same problem in USB Hub. These patches 
(drivers/usb/misc/onboard_usb_hub*) have been merged since last year July.

It looks like we can take some inspiration from this to address PCIE Bus 
issue aswell.

Thanks to Neil to point this.

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220630193530.2608178-1-mka@xxxxxxxxxxxx/T/


--srini
> The PCI bus handling is a separate topic for now (as you have seen from 
> the clearly WIP patches targeting just testing of qca6390's wifi part).
>
> For me there are three parts of the device:
> - power regulator / device embedded power domain.
> - WiFi
> - Bluetooth
>
> With the power regulator being a complex and a bit nasty beast. It has 
> several regulators beneath, which have to be powered up in a proper way.
> Next platforms might bring additional requirements common to both WiFi 
> and BT parts (like having additional clocks, etc). It is externally 
> controlled (after providing power to it you have to tell, which part of 
> the chip is required by pulling up the WiFi and/or BT enable GPIOs.
>
> Having to duplicate this information in BT and WiFi cases results in 
> non-aligned bindings (with WiFi and BT parts using different set of 
> properties and different property names) and non-algined drivers (so the 
> result of the powerup would depend on the order of drivers probing).
>
> So far I still suppose that having a single separate entity controlling 
> the powerup of such chips is the right thing to do.
>
> I'd prefer to use the power-domain bindings (as the idea seems to be 
> aligned here), but as the power-domain is used for the in-chip power 
> domains, we had to invent the pwrseq name.