Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: dts: amlogic: a4: add power domain controller node

[neil . armstrong]

On 28/05/2024 11:00, Xianwei Zhao wrote:
> Hi Neil,
>     Thanks for your quickly reply.
>
> On 2024/5/28 16:46, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> > [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
> >
> > On 28/05/2024 10:39, Xianwei Zhao via B4 Relay wrote:
> > > From: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Add power domain controller node for Amlogic A4 SoC
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi | 4 ++++
> > >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi        | 5 +++++
> > >   2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
> > > index b6106ad4a072..eebde77ae5b4 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
> > > @@ -27,6 +27,10 @@ xtal: xtal-clk {
> > >               #clock-cells = <0>;
> > >       };
> > >
> > > +     sm: secure-monitor {
> > > +             compatible = "amlogic,meson-gxbb-sm";
> > > +     };
> > > +
> > >       soc {
> > >               compatible = "simple-bus";
> > >               #address-cells = <2>;
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
> > > index 73ca1d7eed81..917c05219b9c 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
> > > @@ -37,4 +37,9 @@ cpu3: cpu@3 {
> > >                       enable-method = "psci";
> > >               };
> > >       };
> > > +
> > > +     pwrc: power-controller {
> > > +             compatible = "amlogic,a4-pwrc";
> > > +             #power-domain-cells = <1>;
> > > +     };
> >
> > pwrc is supposed to be a child of secure-monitor.
> Considered writing it like this when I wrote this.
>
> Here are two approaches: one is to include secure-monitor in the comm dtsi and fill power-controller by aliases in dtsi of each chip, while the other is to directly include secure-monitor in the dtsi of each chip. Which one do you suggest?

The bindings mandates it to be a child of the secure monitor.

Neil

> > Neil
> >
> > >   };