[PATCH v3 1/3] base: power: Add generic OF-based power domain look-up

[swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren)]

On 05/06/2014 02:22 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 28 April 2014 19:35, Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 04/23/2014 10:46 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> This patch introduces generic code to perform power domain look-up using
>>> device tree and automatically bind devices to their power domains.
>>> Generic device tree binding is introduced to specify power domains of
>>> devices in their device tree nodes.
>>>
>>> Backwards compatibility with legacy Samsung-specific power domain
>>> bindings is provided, but for now the new code is not compiled when
>>> CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS is selected to avoid collision with legacy code. This
>>> will change as soon as Exynos power domain code gets converted to use
>>> the generic framework in further patch.
>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
>>
>>> +==Power domain consumers==
>>> +
>>> +Required properties:
>>> + - power-domain : A phandle and power domain specifier as defined by bindings
>>> +                  of power controller specified by phandle.
>>
>> It seems quite likely that a single logical device could have components
>> in multiple power domains. Consider an HDMI controller with different
>> power domains for the HDMI core, CEC communication, DDC/I2C
>> communication, and the I/O pads, with no clear separation between those
>> two components of the module (no separate register spaces, but the
>> bits/registers are interleaved all together).
>>
>> As such, I think that rather than a "power-domain" property, we need a
>> pair of "power-domains", and "power-domain-names" properties, and
>> preferably with mandatory usage of name-based lookups, rather than
>> allowing a random mix of name-based and index-based lookups like we have
>> with some existing resource bindings.
> 
> Each struct device have only one dev_pm_domain pointer, thus a device
> are not able to reside in more than one power domain.
> 
> Therefore I doubt this will be very useful, unless I missed your point. :-)

A struct device is a Linux-internal concept. DT is supposed to represent
the HW in an OS-agnostic fashion, not according to the limitations of
any one OS's driver model.

It's certainly true that a single logical HW module (represented by a
single DT node) can have parts in multiple power domains.