[PATCH v1 0/5] power: domain: Add driver for a PM domain provider which controls

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On 15/06/2022 21:13, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-06-15 at 10:37 -0700, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 15/06/2022 10:31, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2022-06-15 at 10:15 -0700, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 15/06/2022 09:10, Max Krummenacher wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 9:22 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert at linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Rob,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 9:15 PM Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 05:08:46PM +0200, Max Krummenacher wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher at toradex.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> its power enable by using a regulator.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The currently implemented PM domain providers are all specific to
>>>>>>>> a particular system on chip.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, power domains tend to be specific to an SoC... 'power-domains' is
>>>>>>> supposed to be power islands in a chip. Linux 'PM domains' can be
>>>>>>> anything...
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't see why such power islands should be restricted to a SoC. You can
>>>>> build the exact same idea on a PCB or even more modular designs.
>>>>
>>>> In the SoC these power islands are more-or-less defined. These are real
>>>> regions gated by some control knob.
>>>>
>>>> Calling few devices on a board "power domain" does not make it a power
>>>> domain. There is no grouping, there is no control knob.
>>>>
>>>> Aren't you now re-implementing regulator supplies? How is this different
>>>> than existing supplies?
>>>
>>> I believe the biggest difference between power-domains and regulator-supplies lays in the former being
>>> driver
>>> agnostic while the later is driver specific.
>>
>> That's one way to look, but the other way (matching the bindings
>> purpose) is to look at hardware. You have physical wire / voltage rail
>> supply - use regulator supply. In the terms of the hardware - what is
>> that power domain? It's a concept, not a physical object.
> 
> Well, but how can that concept then exist within the SoC but not outside? I don't get it. Isn't it just the
> exact same physical power gating thingy whether inside the SoC or on a PCB?
> 
>>> Meaning with power-domains one can just add such arbitrary
>>> structure to the device tree without any further driver specific changes/handling required. While with
>>> regulator-supplies each and every driver actually needs to have driver specific handling thereof added. Or
>>> do I
>>> miss anything?
>>
>> Thanks for clarification but I am not sure if it matches the purpose of
>> bindings and DTS. You can change the implementation as well to have
>> implicit regulators. No need for new bindings for that.
> 
> Okay, maybe that would also work, of course. So basically add a new binding which allows adding regulators to
> arbitrary nodes which then will be generically handled by e.g. runtime PM. Almost something like assigned-
> clocks [1] you mean? I guess that could work. Remember that's why Max posted it as an RFC to get such feedback.
> Thanks for further refining those ideas.

Please do not do this. You have an external device. It has some input 
voltage rails. Please define -supply properties for each of the voltage 
rails. Explicitly power them on and off. Use fixed-regulator for your 
GPIO regulators. Other boards might have other ways to control the power 
supply.

Then define the pm_runtime callbacks doing proper work for you. If you 
wish to do the magic, consider looking on the pm_clock.h interface (and 
adding the pm_regulators.h). But this approach can also be frowned upon 
by the PM maintainers. Nevertheless, this is the driver/core issue. The 
DT interface should be the same: a set of regulators and a set of 
-supply properties.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry