[RESEND v2 1/6] dt-bindings: power: Add JH7110 AON PMU support

[Conor Dooley]

On Sat, May 06, 2023 at 09:45:07AM +0800, Changhuang Liang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2023/5/5 20:38, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, May 05, 2023 at 09:29:15AM +0800, Changhuang Liang wrote:
> > 
> >> But if keep this "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon" compatible. Which .yaml match to
> >> it? Use this series dt-bindings or syscon series dt-bindings.
> > 
> > There is no syscon series anymore, it's part of the PLL series now:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/20230414024157.53203-1-xingyu.wu@starfivetech.com/
> > 
> > I don't really care what you, Walker & Xingyu decide to do, but add the
> > binding in one series in a complete form. It's far less confusing to
> > have only have one version of the binding on the go at once.
> > 
> 
> Due to the current aon pmu needs to be adjusted, it affects the syscon in PLL series.
> So It's inevitable to change syscon in PLL series.
> 
> My current idea is PLL series don't add the aon_syscon node. I will add it in my
> aon pmu series in next version

That's fine. Rob was happy with the clock related parts, which was the
original source of confusion there.

> like this:
> 
> aon_syscon: syscon at 17010000 {
> 	compatible = "starfive,jh7110-aon-pmu", "syscon";

The syscon does a bunch of things of which one is a pmu. I don't see a
reason to name this other than "starfive,jh100-aon-syscon".

> 	reg = <0x0 0x17010000 0x0 0x1000>;
> 	#power-domain-cells = <1>;
> };
> 
> In my opinion, the first we add "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon" because "syscon" can 
> not appear alone in the compatible. If we have "starfive,jh7110-aon-pmu", this
> "starfive,jh7110-aon-syscon" is not a must-be need.
> 
> Do you agree with doing so.
> 
> Thanks,
> Changhuang
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/attachments/20230506/de2041bb/attachment.sig>