Re: [RESEND v2 1/6] dt-bindings: power: Add JH7110 AON PMU support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 25/04/2023 09:57, Changhuang Liang wrote:
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>  description: |
>>>>>>>    StarFive JH7110 SoC includes support for multiple power domains which can be
>>>>>>> @@ -17,6 +18,7 @@ properties:
>>>>>>>    compatible:
>>>>>>>      enum:
>>>>>>>        - starfive,jh7110-pmu
>>>>>>> +      - starfive,jh7110-aon-pmu
>>>>
>>>> I was speaking to Rob about this over the weekend, he asked:
>>>> 'Why isn't "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon" just the power-domain provider
>>>> itself?'
>>>
>>> Maybe not, this syscon only offset "0x00" configure power switch.
>>> other offset configure other functions, maybe not power, so this
>>> "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon" not the power-domain itself.
>>>
>>>> Do we actually need to add a new binding for this at all?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Conor.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe this patch do that.
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230414024157.53203-6-xingyu.wu@starfivetech.com/
>>
>> This makes it a child-node right? I think Rob already said no to that in
>> and earlier revision of this series. What he meant the other day was
>> making the syscon itself a power domain controller, since the child node
>> has no meaningful properties (reg, interrupts etc).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Conor.
> 
> Yes, "starfive,jh7110-aon-pmu" is a child-node of "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon".
> In my opinion, "0x17010000" is "aon-syscon" on JH7110 SoC, and this "aon-pmu" is just 
> a part of "aon-syscon" function, so I think it is inappropriate to make "aon-syscon"
> to a power domain controller. I think using the child-node description is closer to
> JH7110 SoC. 

Unfortunately, I do not see the correlation between these, any
connection. Why being a child of syscon block would mean that this
should no be power domain controller? Really, why? These are two
unrelated things.

Best regards,
Krzysztof