On 03/02/2017 04:43 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 12:27 AM, Rajendra Nayak rnayak@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 02/28/2017 09:22 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Ulf Hansson ulf.hansson@linaro.org wrote:
[...]
---> Parent domain-2 (Contains Perfomance states) | |
C.) DeviceX ---> Parent-domain-1 | | | ---> Parent domain-3 (Contains Perfomance states)
I'm a bit confused. How does a domain have 2 parent domains?
This comes from the early design of the generic PM domain, thus I assume we have some HW with such complex PM topology. However, I don't know if it is actually being used.
Moreover, the corresponding DT bindings for "power-domains" parents, can easily be extended to cover more than one parent. See more in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt
I could easily see device having 2 power domains. For example a cpu may have separate domains for RAM/caches and logic. And nesting of
yet the bindings for power-domains (for consumer devices) only allows for one powerdomain to be associated with a device.
There's nothing in the binding only allowing that. If that was true, then #powerdomain-cells would be pointless
Is't #powerdomain-cells a powerdomain provider property? and used to specify if a powerdomain provider supports providing 1 or many powerdomains? I was talking about the power domain consumer property. Looking at Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/power_domain.txt..
==PM domain consumers==
Required properties: - power-domains : A phandle and PM domain specifier as defined by bindings of the power controller specified by phandle.
It clearly says 'A phandle'. If there was a way to specify multiple power-domains for a consumer device should it not be saying a list of phandles? Like we do for clocks and regulators?
as the property size would tell you the number of cells. Now it may be that we simply don't have any cases with more than 1. Hopefully that's not because bindings are working around PM domain limitations/requirements.
Rob