Re: [PATCH 3/3] arm64: dts: qcom: qcm2290: Hook up MPM

[Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 7/14/26 3:04 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 1:41 PM Marek Szyprowski
> <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 15.12.2023 01:01, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> Wire up MPM and the interrupts it provides.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm2290.dtsi | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>  1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm2290.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm2290.dtsi
>>> index ce04d0acdede..0911fb08ed63 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm2290.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcm2290.dtsi
>>> @@ -199,6 +199,7 @@ CPU_PD3: power-domain-cpu3 {
>>>
>>>               CLUSTER_PD: power-domain-cpu-cluster {
>>>                       #power-domain-cells = <0>;
>>> +                     power-domains = <&mpm>;
>>>                       domain-idle-states = <&CLUSTER_SLEEP>;
>>>               };
>>>       };
>>
>>
>> This patch landed long time ago in mainline as commit e3f6a6994041
>> ("arm64: dts: qcom: qcm2290: Hook up MPM").
> 
> Without detailed HW expertise (still learning about the UnoQ), it
> looks to me that the HW may have been modelled upside down.
> 
> The power-domain-cpu-cluster should probably *not* be the consumer of
> the mpm, but rather the opposite. This is how qcom,rpmh-rsc works, for
> example.

I think that's right - we only need the "CPU_SS going off" notification

Konrad