Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: power: Add regulator-pd yaml file

[Shenwei Wang]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 10:58 AM
> To: Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@xxxxxxx>; Rob Herring
> <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Conor Dooley
> <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>; Liam Girdwood
> <lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx>; Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> imx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: power: Add regulator-pd yaml
> file
> 
> >
> > That is arguable too. The driver may assume its power is on when
> > probed, which aligns with how the PD behaves.
> 
> So everything in driver... no discussion about bindings.
> 

That's true only when you have a PD driver for it. 

> >
> >>> It also lacks power management support.
> >>
> >> Which is not related to bindings but implementation in given driver.
> >>
> >
> > For those simple drivers, the default power management logic can
> > handle power correctly without requiring any specialized
> > implementation in the driver code.
> 
> You can create any drivers you wish or change existing ones. I don't see a
> problem here.
> 

That's what this patch set does.

> >
> >>>
> >
> > As a new driver, it has to involve some new bindings especially the
> > compatible string.
> 
> I am not talking about this. I do not speak about creating new bindings, but
> changing them.

I'm a bit confused by your statement. The patch only creates some necessary 
new bindings for the new driver. It doesn't change any existing bindings.

> >
> >>>
> > Thank you for the clarification. The issue is that this driver is
> > purely a software layer that wraps the regulators as a power domain.
> > The bindings make the implementation clean and easy to understand.  I
> > don't think we should add extra complex logic inside the driver solely to avoid
> introducing new bindings.
> 
> Since bindings are not for software layers, I don't think we should be talking
> about them just to avoid introducing driver changes.
> 

While it is a software layer, it is a driver that requires bindings. I don't think 
you would recommend hardcoding those properties inside the driver itself.

Thanks,
Shenwei

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof