Messages in this thread | | | From | Bartosz Golaszewski <> | Date | Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:56:00 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/7] dt-bindings: soc: new driver for DaVinci genpd |
| |
2018-02-07 22:47 GMT+01:00 David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>: > On 02/07/2018 07:45 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> >> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> >> >> Add a simple document for the DaVinci genpd driver. We use clock pm >> exclusively hence no reg property. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com> >> --- >> .../devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt | 13 >> +++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt >> >> diff --git >> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..935d063c7b35 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/ti,davinci-pm-domains.txt >> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ >> +Device tree bindings for the genpd driver for Texas Instruments DaVinci >> SoCs >> + >> +Required properties: >> + >> +- compatible: must be "ti,davinci-pm-domains" >> +- #power-domain-cells: must be 0 >> + >> +Example: >> + >> +pwc1: power-controller@227000 { >> + compatible = "ti,davinci-pm-domains"; >> + #power-domain-cells = <0>; >> +}; >> > > > We already have the PSC @227000. Why not just add > #power-domain-cells = <0>; to that node instead of creating > a new "device" when this is really the same device?
I thought about it too, but then noticed that most architectures do use a separate genpd driver even if it only calls routines placed in their respective clock driver.
Let me prepare a v2 with this approach though.
Thanks, Bartosz
| |