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

[Shenwei Wang]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 4:59 AM
> To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Shenwei Wang <shenwei.wang@xxxxxxx>; Rob Herring
> <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>; Conor Dooley <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx>; Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>;
> imx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: power: Add regulator-pd yaml file
> > > If I understood your reply correctly,  it seems that the current
> > > implementation of regulator-pd is what you have described. Please correct
> me if I'm mistaken.
> > >
> > > The following are the diff of scu-pd and this regulator-pd.
> > >
> > >     power-controller {                                                    power-controller {
> > >         compatible = "fsl,imx8qxp-scu-pd", "fsl,scu-pd";      |               compatible
> = "regulator-power-domain";
> > >         #power-domain-cells = <1>;                                    #power-domain-cells =
> <1>;
> > >                                                             >
> > >                                                             >         regulator-number = <2>;
> > >                                                             >         regulator-0-supply = <&reg1>;
> > >                                                             >         regulator-1-supply = <&reg2>;
> > >     };                                                                    };
> > >
> > > Are you suggesting to move the regulator-pd to the imx directory and
> > > add a company prefix to the compatible string?
> >
> > There is no such part of iMX processor as such regulator-power-domain,
> > so I don't recommend that approach. DTS nodes represent hardware, not
> > your SW layers.
>
> I would agree if this was pure SW layers, but I don't think it is. At least, if I have
> understood the earlier discussions correctly [1], there are certainly one or more
> power-domains here. The power-domains just happen to be powered through
> something that can be modelled as a regular regulator(s). No?
>
> Note that, we already have other power-domains that are consumers of
> regulators too.

Can you please point me an example? I would be happy to use the existing implementation
if it fits this use case.

Thanks,
Shenwei

>
> Kind regards
> Uffe
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kern/
> el.org%2Fall%2F20220609150851.23084-1-
> max.oss.09%40gmail.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cshenwei.wang%40nxp.com%
> 7Cebeaa5d30be14033509f08dba7ad7dbd%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c30
> 1635%7C0%7C0%7C638288135797275723%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJ
> WIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C
> 3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=re2A5wbng9haHoMKTbPICh%2Fh9VJVsG66H9jybd2fN
> k8%3D&reserved=0