Hi Marek, > -----Original Message----- > From: Jolly Shah > Sent: Friday, May 18, 2018 2:19 PM > To: 'Marek Szyprowski' <[email protected]> > Cc: Matthias Brugger <[email protected]>; Andy Gross > <[email protected]>; Shawn Guo <[email protected]>; Geert > Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>; Björn Andersson > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Michal Simek > <[email protected]>; Mark Rutland <[email protected]>; Rajan > Vaja <[email protected]>; open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED > DEVICE TREE BINDINGS <[email protected]>; Linux ARM <linux-arm- > [email protected]>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux- > [email protected]>; Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>; Rob > Herring <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: power: Add ZynqMP power domain > bindings > > Hi Marek, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marek Szyprowski [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 11:31 PM > > To: Jolly Shah <[email protected]>; Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux- > > m68k.org>; Rob Herring <[email protected]> > > Cc: Matthias Brugger <[email protected]>; Andy Gross > > <[email protected]>; Shawn Guo <[email protected]>; Geert > > Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>; Björn Andersson > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Michal Simek > > <[email protected]>; Mark Rutland <[email protected]>; Rajan > > Vaja <[email protected]>; open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED > DEVICE > > TREE BINDINGS <[email protected]>; Linux ARM <linux-arm- > > [email protected]>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux- > > [email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: power: Add ZynqMP power domain > > bindings > > > > Hi Jolly, > > > > On 2018-05-17 23:10, Jolly Shah wrote: > > > > >>>>>> +Example: > > >>>>>> + zynqmp-genpd { > > >>>>>> + compatible = "xlnx,zynqmp-genpd"; > > >>>>> What's the control interface for controlling the domains? > > >>>>>> + > > >>>>>> + pd_usb0: pd-usb0 { > > >>>>>> + pd-id = <22>; > > >>>>>> + #power-domain-cells = <0>; > > >>>>> There's no need for all these sub nodes. Make > > >>>>> #power-domain-cells > > >>>>> 1 and put the id in the cell value. > > >>>> That was my first reaction, too... > > >>>>>> + }; > > >>>>>> + > > >>>>>> + pd_sata: pd-sata { > > >>>>>> + pd-id = <28>; > > >>>>>> + #power-domain-cells = <0>; > > >>>>>> + }; > > >>>>>> + > > >>>>>> + pd_gpu: pd-gpu { > > >>>>>> + pd-id = <58 20 21>; > > >>>> ... until I saw the above. > > >>>> Controlling the GPU power area requires controlling 3 physical areas? > > >>>> > > >>>> However, doing it this way may bite you in the future, if a need > > >>>> arises to control a subset. And what about power up/down order? > > >>> What about defining 3 separate domains and arranging them in > > >>> parent-child relationship? generic power domains already supports > > >>> that and this allows to nicely define the power on/off order. > > >>> > > >>>>>> + #power-domain-cells = <0x0>; > > >>>>>> + }; > > >>>>>> + }; > > >> I agree it should be arranged in as parent child order to control > > >> subset or control order. Will incorporate those changes in next version. > > > > > > As suggested, I tried out parent, child approach. However what I > > > found is > > Genpd core takes care of parent child dependencies for power on off > > routines only. In our case, We need them in attach-detach routines > > too. In that case, we need to handle dependencies manually for those > > routines. Please suggest better approach, if any. > > > > What do you mean to handle attach-detach? > > > > Best regards > > -- > > Marek Szyprowski, PhD > > Samsung R&D Institute Poland > > For our power domain driver, we request usage of these nodes in attach > routines and power them on in power on routine. So for below specific case, > when attach_dev is called, all 3 nodes need to be requested. > > > >>>>>> + pd_gpu: pd-gpu { > > >>>>>> + pd-id = <58 20 21>; > > Thanks, > Jolly Shah >
Please let me know your opinion. Thanks, Jolly Shah
