Re: [PATCH v6 5/9] pmdomain: qcom: rpmpd: Add IPQ9574 power domains

[Ulf Hansson]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2024 at 19:26, Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 10:02:31AM GMT, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 02:44:08PM +0530, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 02:15:12PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > > On 10.07.2024 8:10 AM, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
> > > > > From: Praveenkumar I <quic_ipkumar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > Add the APC power domain definitions used in IPQ9574.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Praveenkumar I <quic_ipkumar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Varadarajan Narayanan <quic_varada@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Could you please confirm [1]?
> > > >
> > > > Konrad
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/57dadb35-5dde-4127-87aa-962613730336@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > >
> > > The author is off for a few days. Will get back to you once he is in.
> >
> > Have responded to that query. Please see https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/ZqCCpf1FwLWulSgr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> If it responds to voltage values, please model it as a regulator rather
> than a power domain.

Just wanted to give my brief opinion around this too.

I agree that it seems to make sense to model it as a regulator, but
that doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't model it as a
power-domain too.

If it is a power-domain it should be modelled like that - and then the
power-domain provider should be assigned as the consumer of that
regulator.

Kind regards
Uffe