[PATCH 2/7] dt-bindings: gpu: mali-utgard: add optional supply regulator

On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:12:24AM +0200, Heiko St?bner wrote:

Hi Rob,

Am Dienstag, 12. September 2017, 17:09:20 CEST schrieb Rob Herring:

quoted

On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 12:57:34PM +0200, Heiko Stuebner wrote:

quoted

Mali GPUs have a separate supplying regulator in a lot of socs,
so describe a mali-supply property. The already described
operating points will likely also need access to this regulator.

Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>
---

 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-utgard.txt | 3 +++
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-utgard.txt

b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-utgard.txt index
3b7f6f72f032..bcaa640c883f 100644

--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-utgard.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-utgard.txt

@@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ Optional properties:
     Memory region to allocate from, as defined in
     Documentation/devicetree/bindi/reserved-memory/reserved-memory.txt

+  - mali-supply : Phandle to regulator for the Mali device. Refer to
+    Documentation/devicetree/bindings/regulator/regulator.txt for

details.

Wouldn't a power domain be more appropriate?

At least on Rockchip socs there is a power-domain, but also the separate 
additional regulator. See the similar mali-midgard binding.

And that regulator's state is independent of the power domain's state? 

But I guess OPPs need a regulator. Really we should allow OPPs to be 
tied to the power domain. Maybe we do, I can't keep up with the ever 
evolving PM stuff.

So, given we already have it for midgard,

Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

Rob