From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:45:52 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/14] PM / shmobile: Pass power domain information via DT (was: Re: [RFD] PM: Device Message-Id: <87mx2mmc1b.fsf@ti.com> List-Id: References: <201207032302.17805.rjw@sisk.pl> <201207242237.28051.rjw@sisk.pl> <201207251300.34892.arnd@arndb.de> <201207260032.40159.rjw@sisk.pl> <87vchb4ar8.fsf@ti.com> <20120726210952.GG4560@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> In-Reply-To: <20120726210952.GG4560@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (Mark Brown's message of "Thu, 26 Jul 2012 22:09:53 +0100") MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Mark Brown Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Arnd Bergmann , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Linux PM list , LKML , Matthew Garrett , Magnus Damm , Grant Likely , Linux-sh list , Benoit Cousson Mark Brown writes: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 05:38:35PM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > >> That being said, I'm not sure why ti,hwmods is being used as an example >> for powerdomains. hwmods describe the integration of SoC IP blocks >> (base addr, IRQ, DMA channel etc., which are being moved to DT) as well >> as a bunch of SoC specific PM register descriptions. This stuff is >> SoC-specific PM register layout, so being very SoC specific, it has the >> 'ti' prefix in the DT binding. > > I think the thing here is that one aspect of that SoC integration is > which power domain the blocks are in. Describing which power domain an > IP is in isn't a million miles away from describing which hwmod applies > to an IP. Not a million miles, just a million transistors. ;) Ideally, we will eventually have a representation that can map from regulators all the way down to IP blocks. regulator --> voltage domain --> power domain --> clock domain --> clocks --> IP block. Currently we have bindings for regulators, IP blocks (ti,hwmods on OMAP) and clocks are in progress. Eventually, we'll need everything else in between. Kevin