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

Xianwei Zhao
2024-05-28T09:18:28Z

Hi Neil,
Thanks for your reply.

On 2024/5/28 17:08, neil.armstrong@linaro.org wrote:
> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>
> 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@amlogic.com>
>>>>
>>>> Add power domain controller node for Amlogic A4 SoC
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@amlogic.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   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.
>
Will fix it.
> Neil
>
>>
>>> Neil
>>>
>>>>   };
>>>>
>>>