Hi Geert,

On 21/09/16 15:57, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

Hi Jon,

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Jon Hunter [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 21/09/16 09:53, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Jon Hunter [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Some devices may require more than one PM domain to operate and this is
not currently by the PM domain framework. Furthermore, the current Linux
'device' structure only allows devices to be associated with a single PM
domain and so cannot easily be associated with more than one. To allow
devices to be associated with more than one PM domain, if multiple
domains are defined for a given device (eg. via device-tree), then:
1. Create a new PM domain for this device. The name of the new PM domain
   created matches the device name for which it was created for.
2. Register the new PM domain as a sub-domain for all PM domains
   required by the device.
3. Attach the device to the new PM domain.

This looks a suboptimal to me: if you have n devices sharing the same PM
domains, you would add n new subdomains?

BTW, would this be the case today for some renesas devices or are you
just pointing this out as something that could be optimised/improved?

This is the case for all Renesas SoCs that have power areas: devices belong
to both the PM domain for the power area, and to the PM domain for the clock
domain.

To quantify this a bit, for the Renesas case, how many of these
duplicated domains would there be if you were to use this approach as-is?

I would like to see some agreement about whether we would allow the
'power-domains' property to have more than one power-domain. We could
always improve the implementation in the future. I am quite happy to
re-work this RFC to avoid duplicated domains for devices like Renesas if
people are on board with the overall proposal.

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic