From: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@amlogic.com>
Add power domain controller node for Amlogic A4 SoC
Signed-off-by: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@amlogic.com>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi | 4 ++++
arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi | 5 +++++
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
index b6106ad4a072..eebde77ae5b4 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
@@ -27,6 +27,10 @@ xtal: xtal-clk {
#clock-cells = <0>;
};
+ sm: secure-monitor {
+ compatible = "amlogic,meson-gxbb-sm";
+ };
+
soc {
compatible = "simple-bus";
#address-cells = <2>;
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
index 73ca1d7eed81..917c05219b9c 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
@@ -37,4 +37,9 @@ cpu3: cpu@3 {
enable-method = "psci";
};
};
+
+ pwrc: power-controller {
+ compatible = "amlogic,a4-pwrc";
+ #power-domain-cells = <1>;
+ };
};
--
2.37.1
On 28/05/2024 10:39, Xianwei Zhao via B4 Relay wrote:
> From: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@amlogic.com>
>
> Add power domain controller node for Amlogic A4 SoC
>
> Signed-off-by: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@amlogic.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi | 4 ++++
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
> index b6106ad4a072..eebde77ae5b4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
> @@ -27,6 +27,10 @@ xtal: xtal-clk {
> #clock-cells = <0>;
> };
>
> + sm: secure-monitor {
> + compatible = "amlogic,meson-gxbb-sm";
> + };
> +
> soc {
> compatible = "simple-bus";
> #address-cells = <2>;
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
> index 73ca1d7eed81..917c05219b9c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
> @@ -37,4 +37,9 @@ cpu3: cpu@3 {
> enable-method = "psci";
> };
> };
> +
> + pwrc: power-controller {
> + compatible = "amlogic,a4-pwrc";
> + #power-domain-cells = <1>;
> + };
pwrc is supposed to be a child of secure-monitor.
Neil
> };
>
Hi Neil,
Thanks for your quickly reply.
On 2024/5/28 16:46, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>
> On 28/05/2024 10:39, Xianwei Zhao via B4 Relay wrote:
>> From: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@amlogic.com>
>>
>> Add power domain controller node for Amlogic A4 SoC
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@amlogic.com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi | 4 ++++
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi | 5 +++++
>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
>> index b6106ad4a072..eebde77ae5b4 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
>> @@ -27,6 +27,10 @@ xtal: xtal-clk {
>> #clock-cells = <0>;
>> };
>>
>> + sm: secure-monitor {
>> + compatible = "amlogic,meson-gxbb-sm";
>> + };
>> +
>> soc {
>> compatible = "simple-bus";
>> #address-cells = <2>;
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
>> index 73ca1d7eed81..917c05219b9c 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
>> @@ -37,4 +37,9 @@ cpu3: cpu@3 {
>> enable-method = "psci";
>> };
>> };
>> +
>> + pwrc: power-controller {
>> + compatible = "amlogic,a4-pwrc";
>> + #power-domain-cells = <1>;
>> + };
>
> pwrc is supposed to be a child of secure-monitor.
>
Considered writing it like this when I wrote this.
Here are two approaches: one is to include secure-monitor in the comm
dtsi and fill power-controller by aliases in dtsi of each chip, while
the other is to directly include secure-monitor in the dtsi of each
chip. Which one do you suggest?
> Neil
>
>> };
>>
>
On 28/05/2024 11:00, Xianwei Zhao wrote:
> Hi Neil,
> Thanks for your quickly reply.
>
> On 2024/5/28 16:46, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>>
>> On 28/05/2024 10:39, Xianwei Zhao via B4 Relay wrote:
>>> From: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@amlogic.com>
>>>
>>> Add power domain controller node for Amlogic A4 SoC
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@amlogic.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi | 4 ++++
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi | 5 +++++
>>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
>>> index b6106ad4a072..eebde77ae5b4 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
>>> @@ -27,6 +27,10 @@ xtal: xtal-clk {
>>> #clock-cells = <0>;
>>> };
>>>
>>> + sm: secure-monitor {
>>> + compatible = "amlogic,meson-gxbb-sm";
>>> + };
>>> +
>>> soc {
>>> compatible = "simple-bus";
>>> #address-cells = <2>;
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
>>> index 73ca1d7eed81..917c05219b9c 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
>>> @@ -37,4 +37,9 @@ cpu3: cpu@3 {
>>> enable-method = "psci";
>>> };
>>> };
>>> +
>>> + pwrc: power-controller {
>>> + compatible = "amlogic,a4-pwrc";
>>> + #power-domain-cells = <1>;
>>> + };
>>
>> pwrc is supposed to be a child of secure-monitor.
>>
> Considered writing it like this when I wrote this.
>
> Here are two approaches: one is to include secure-monitor in the comm dtsi and fill power-controller by aliases in dtsi of each chip, while the other is to directly include secure-monitor in the dtsi of each chip. Which one do you suggest?
The bindings mandates it to be a child of the secure monitor.
Neil
>
>> Neil
>>
>>> };
>>>
>>
Hi Neil,
Thanks for your reply.
On 2024/5/28 17:08, neil.armstrong@linaro.org wrote:
> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>
> On 28/05/2024 11:00, Xianwei Zhao wrote:
>> Hi Neil,
>> Thanks for your quickly reply.
>>
>> On 2024/5/28 16:46, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>>>
>>> On 28/05/2024 10:39, Xianwei Zhao via B4 Relay wrote:
>>>> From: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@amlogic.com>
>>>>
>>>> Add power domain controller node for Amlogic A4 SoC
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Xianwei Zhao <xianwei.zhao@amlogic.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi | 4 ++++
>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi | 5 +++++
>>>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
>>>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
>>>> index b6106ad4a072..eebde77ae5b4 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4-common.dtsi
>>>> @@ -27,6 +27,10 @@ xtal: xtal-clk {
>>>> #clock-cells = <0>;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> + sm: secure-monitor {
>>>> + compatible = "amlogic,meson-gxbb-sm";
>>>> + };
>>>> +
>>>> soc {
>>>> compatible = "simple-bus";
>>>> #address-cells = <2>;
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
>>>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
>>>> index 73ca1d7eed81..917c05219b9c 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/amlogic-a4.dtsi
>>>> @@ -37,4 +37,9 @@ cpu3: cpu@3 {
>>>> enable-method = "psci";
>>>> };
>>>> };
>>>> +
>>>> + pwrc: power-controller {
>>>> + compatible = "amlogic,a4-pwrc";
>>>> + #power-domain-cells = <1>;
>>>> + };
>>>
>>> pwrc is supposed to be a child of secure-monitor.
>>>
>> Considered writing it like this when I wrote this.
>>
>> Here are two approaches: one is to include secure-monitor in the comm
>> dtsi and fill power-controller by aliases in dtsi of each chip, while
>> the other is to directly include secure-monitor in the dtsi of each
>> chip. Which one do you suggest?
>
> The bindings mandates it to be a child of the secure monitor.
>
Will fix it.
> Neil
>
>>
>>> Neil
>>>
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>
>
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.