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

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-03-30T10:17:09Z

On 30/03/2026 12:13, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> 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

I raised exactly that questions but no answers.

> other. I think keeping all four DT patches together makes sense.

Why? What is the dependency?

>
> 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.

soc must go via my tree, but there is no reason to take the pmdomain
binding patch. So I did not take.

But anyway, I just noticed that I dropped everything: this introduces
new warnings which were nowhere addressed or explained. So regardless
how this should go, please do not apply anything - it's broken and
author is silent.

Best regards,
Krzysztof