On Sat, Feb 10, 2024 at 05:38:56PM +0100, Luca Weiss wrote:
> Add the compatibles and indexes for the rpmpd in MSM8974, both with the
> standard PM8841+PM8941 PMICs but also devices found with PMA8084.
>
> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <[email protected]>
> ---
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml | 2 ++
> include/dt-bindings/power/qcom-rpmpd.h | 7 +++++++
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml
> index 2ff246cf8b81..929b7ef9c1bc 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/power/qcom,rpmpd.yaml
> @@ -24,6 +24,8 @@ properties:
> - qcom,msm8917-rpmpd
> - qcom,msm8939-rpmpd
> - qcom,msm8953-rpmpd
> + - qcom,msm8974-rpmpd
> + - qcom,msm8974pro-pma8084-rpmpd
> - qcom,msm8976-rpmpd
> - qcom,msm8994-rpmpd
> - qcom,msm8996-rpmpd
This is maybe more something for the DT reviewers to decide but I wonder
if it is a bit confusing/misleading to describe one particular PMIC with
a generic compatible, and the other with a more specific one. Perhaps it
would be clearer to include the PMIC name in both compatibles, i.e.
"qcom,msm8974-pm8941-rpmpd" instead of "qcom,msm8974-rpmpd".
The "qcom,msm8974-rpmpd" compatible could be maybe added as fallback.
While it wouldn't be used for matching in the (Linux) driver the DT
binding itself *is* "compatible" between the two PMICs because they both
have the same power domain indexes.
i.e.
compatible = "qcom,msm8974-pm8941-rpmpd", "qcom,msm8974-rpmpd";
compatible = "qcom,msm8974pro-pma8084-rpmpd", "qcom,msm8974-rpmpd";
Thanks,
Stephan