[PATCH v1 1/7] dt-bindings: power: Constrain properties for JH7110 PMU

[Changhuang Liang]

On 2023/4/12 19:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 12/04/2023 11:42, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:51:16PM +0800, Changhuang Liang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2023/4/12 16:35, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2023 08:47, Changhuang Liang wrote:
>>>>> When use "starfive,jh7110-pmu-dphy" compatible, do not need the reg and
>>>>> interrupts properties.
>>> [...]
>>>>>  
>>>>>  description: |
>>>>>    StarFive JH7110 SoC includes support for multiple power domains which can be
>>>>> @@ -17,6 +18,7 @@ properties:
>>>>>    compatible:
>>>>>      enum:
>>>>>        - starfive,jh7110-pmu
>>>>> +      - starfive,jh7110-pmu-dphy
>>>>
>>>> You do here much more than commit msg says.
>>>>
>>>> Isn'y DPHY a phy? Why is it in power?
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, I will add more description. This is a power framework used to turn on/off 
>>> DPHY. So it in power, not a phy.

I found something wrong with my description here, not turn on/off DPHY,
is turn on/off DPHY power switch. 

>>
>> Perhaps tie it less to its role w/ the phy, and more to do with its
>> location, say "jh7110-aon-pmu"?
>> There's already "aon"/"sys"/"stg" stuff used in clock-controller and
>> syscon compatibles etc.
>>
>> Krzysztof, what do you think of that? (if you remember the whole
>> discussion we previously had about using those identifiers a few weeks
>> ago).
> 
> Depends whether this is the same case or not. AFAIR, for AON/SYS/STG
> these were blocks with few features, not only clock controller.
> 
> This sounds like just phy. Powering on/off phy is still a job of phy
> controller... unless it is a power domain controller.
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
> 

So, next version the compatible can be changed to "jh7110-aon-pmu"?