Re: [PATCH 0/9] google: Add support for Laguna CPM

[Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2026 at 02:24:35PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Either you expect review or not. RFC means no.

OK, PATCH.

> If that's patch, then at
> the top level of cover letter, as the most important thing, you explain
> the dependency and merging proposal of this.

OK, I'll try to move it up. To be fair though, every change that has any
dependency is clearly noted in its below-the-fold notes.

> You combined here like 5
> different subsystens...

What do you recommend here? I believe the general principles of DT
binding development suggest there should be a single binding doc for
describing the "Central Power Manager" (and the services it supports).
CPM supports functionality covered by many subsystems.

While in theory, bindings can be written without corresponding software
support (drivers), in practice it usually works out better to develop
them together, to prove that the binding describes the hardware/firmware
sufficiently.

And even if the binding goes separately, I don't think I can 100% split
the driver support by subsystem, as they all require the same underlying
CPM helpers, and those helpers don't have much meaning without their
clients. So some multi-subsystem work is still necessary IMO.

So I don't really see how I can address your complaint. But I'm open to
your ideas.

Brian