Re: [PATCH 2/7] dt-bindings: gpu: mali-utgard: add optional supply regulator

Rob Herring
2017-09-13T14:34:15Z

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:12:24AM +0200, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> Am Dienstag, 12. September 2017, 17:09:20 CEST schrieb Rob Herring:
> > On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 12:57:34PM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > > Mali GPUs have a separate supplying regulator in a lot of socs,
> > > so describe a mali-supply property. The already described
> > > operating points will likely also need access to this regulator.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko-4mtYJXux2i+zQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-utgard.txt | 3 +++
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-utgard.txt
> > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-utgard.txt index
> > > 3b7f6f72f032..bcaa640c883f 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-utgard.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-utgard.txt
> > >
> > > @@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ Optional properties:
> > > Memory region to allocate from, as defined in
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindi/reserved-memory/reserved-memory.txt
> > >
> > > + - mali-supply : Phandle to regulator for the Mali device. Refer to
> > > + Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt for
> > > details.
> >
> > Wouldn't a power domain be more appropriate?
>
> At least on Rockchip socs there is a power-domain, but also the separate
> additional regulator. See the similar mali-midgard binding.

And that regulator's state is independent of the power domain's state?

But I guess OPPs need a regulator. Really we should allow OPPs to be
tied to the power domain. Maybe we do, I can't keep up with the ever
evolving PM stuff.

So, given we already have it for midgard,

Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>

Rob