Re: (subset) [PATCH v8 00/10] pmdomain: samsung: add support for Google GS101

Ulf Hansson
2026-03-30T10:13:59Z

On Mon, 30 Mar 2026 at 11:54, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On 23/03/2026 12:13, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > Hi Krzysztof,
> >
> > On Sat, 21 Mar 2026 at 14:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 15:27:45 +0000, André Draszik wrote:
> >>> This series adds support for the power domains on Google GS101.
> >>>
> >>> There are a few differences compared to SoCs already supported by this
> >>> driver:
> >>> * register access does not work via plain ioremap() / readl() /
> >>> writel().
> >>> Instead, the regmap created by the PMU driver must be used (which
> >>> uses Arm SMCC calls under the hood).
> >>> * DTZPC: a call needs to be made before and after power domain off/on,
> >>> to inform the EL3 firmware of the request.
> >>> * power domains can and are fed by a regulator rail and therefore
> >>> regulator control needed be implemented.
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>
> >> Applied, thanks!
> >>
> >> [01/10] dt-bindings: soc: google: add google,gs101-dtzpc
> >> https://git.kernel.org/krzk/linux/c/10084aeadadfab72648f6ed1cc78f7cd87b861ba
> >> [03/10] dt-bindings: soc: samsung: exynos-pmu: move gs101-pmu into separate binding
> >> https://git.kernel.org/krzk/linux/c/3ec3c42b426fe5e2b48ff19c551dec50bc78788c
> >> [04/10] dt-bindings: soc: google: gs101-pmu: allow power domains as children
> >> https://git.kernel.org/krzk/linux/c/c8229a5160eea145b796f54317d6e659cec9b080
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >
> > Usually I pick up the power-domain related changes for the DT bindings
> > and host them via an immutable branch called "dt". If needed, SOC
> > maintainers can pull it to apply/test the corresponding DTS changes.
> >
> > That said, I am open to whatever you think is best here. Perhaps it's
> > easier if you can drop the DT patches and provide your acks instead or
> > if you can share them via an immutable branch for me to pull?
>
>
> I did not pick up any pmdomain binding patches. I picked up only soc and
> according to cover letter there are no dependencies between anything here.

As I understand it, they are all related and some even depend on each
other. I think keeping all four DT patches together makes sense.

Although, as I said, if you think it's best to funnel them through
your tree, please do and then share them via an immutable branch, so I
can apply the pmdomain driver changes.

Kind regards
Uffe