From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ahti.lucaweiss.eu (ahti.lucaweiss.eu [128.199.32.197]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46B965A4C7; Sun, 11 Feb 2024 11:19:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=128.199.32.197 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707650360; cv=none; b=DamDw2HoJnRxfFouXvgLqNn5TrOR0rrms1je28zXbAT+T9YfClUYTquhG5lwJDRVM/jmMWvttOS6Jig2KR1W4nIyc+6gj7hrp1ks1fnMRa0y0A8uMapv2Z6Fz8EiXA35VS+9u2/KZ2l1hfEfg3GecxgRxyAQYbjzWFD016Io+wM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707650360; c=relaxed/simple; bh=yA/biYvRr9hf2HQDPmoGQm+4JVMxSnfysgiTJ9nNW/c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=klB3Cgh3oDVutwa2VtaxHfTzIXNjxyF6rQiiJMy/QstsxbT18hwcDkQnaF2txL5a9ih+lXYE19Yr1vNccrIcXz6nwuOP9IgcDldH5i44WWC3J54mhlNXQIW574oH9cQvmJyqrHVQxBJxzVwItNwsvQIU6vUtA1zKW+ZBF1b+wNI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=z3ntu.xyz; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=z3ntu.xyz; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=z3ntu.xyz header.i=@z3ntu.xyz header.b=izEB8l+5; arc=none smtp.client-ip=128.199.32.197 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=z3ntu.xyz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=z3ntu.xyz Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=z3ntu.xyz header.i=@z3ntu.xyz header.b="izEB8l+5" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=z3ntu.xyz; s=s1; t=1707650356; bh=yA/biYvRr9hf2HQDPmoGQm+4JVMxSnfysgiTJ9nNW/c=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=izEB8l+5fyMBafcahj7RxjD8caa3o5xLsoG7sDDf37Zu/xKZZR0jihu0LFMaOPwOa cc0+40R3Sy0T93Zthk+X7jCJjKdR6opIDYLK4V8W7tNr6tgshExAAObmfhk/IimQj1 r1v32OhZe6ZKEii3Pjp9zlT5xQQ0zkGlhETbSxLM= From: Luca Weiss To: Stephan Gerhold Cc: ~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht, phone-devel@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Andersson , Konrad Dybcio , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Ulf Hansson , Matti =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lehtim=E4ki?= , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: power: rpmpd: Add MSM8974 power domains Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2024 12:19:14 +0100 Message-ID: <12625470.O9o76ZdvQC@z3ntu.xyz> In-Reply-To: References: <20240210-msm8974-rpmpd-v2-0-595e2ff80ea1@z3ntu.xyz> <20240210-msm8974-rpmpd-v2-1-595e2ff80ea1@z3ntu.xyz> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Sonntag, 11. Februar 2024 12:03:15 CET Stephan Gerhold wrote: > On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 05:38:56PM +0100, Luca Weiss wrote: > > Add the compatibles and indexes for the rpmpd in MSM8974, both with the > > standard PM8841+PM8941 PMICs but also devices found with PMA8084. > > > > Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss > > --- > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml | 2 ++ > > include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h | 7 +++++++ > > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml index > > 2ff246cf8b81..929b7ef9c1bc 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml > > > > @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ properties: > > - qcom,msm8917-rpmpd > > - qcom,msm8939-rpmpd > > - qcom,msm8953-rpmpd > > > > + - qcom,msm8974-rpmpd > > + - qcom,msm8974pro-pma8084-rpmpd > > > > - qcom,msm8976-rpmpd > > - qcom,msm8994-rpmpd > > - qcom,msm8996-rpmpd > > This is maybe more something for the DT reviewers to decide but I wonder > if it is a bit confusing/misleading to describe one particular PMIC with > a generic compatible, and the other with a more specific one. Perhaps it > would be clearer to include the PMIC name in both compatibles, i.e. > "qcom,msm8974-pm8941-rpmpd" instead of "qcom,msm8974-rpmpd". FWIW if we'd do that it should be qcom,msm8974-pm8841-rpmpd (so pm8841 instead of pm8941) But also in the same vain, it was maybe a bit of a bad decision originally to make the compatibles SoC-specific and not SoC+PMIC-specific - though in nearly all cases this combo is fixed for a given SoC? Anyways, I'll wait for more comments about this, I'm open to changing it either way. Regards Luca > > The "qcom,msm8974-rpmpd" compatible could be maybe added as fallback. > While it wouldn't be used for matching in the (Linux) driver the DT > binding itself *is* "compatible" between the two PMICs because they both > have the same power domain indexes. > > i.e. > compatible = "qcom,msm8974-pm8941-rpmpd", "qcom,msm8974-rpmpd"; > compatible = "qcom,msm8974pro-pma8084-rpmpd", "qcom,msm8974-rpmpd"; > > Thanks, > Stephan