Re: [PATCH 01/11] dt-bindings: display: rockchip,inno-hdmi: Document RK3128 compatible

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 14/12/2023 17:20, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2023, 17:07:27 CET schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>> On 14/12/2023 16:22, Alex Bee wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 14.12.23 um 08:53 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>>>> On 13/12/2023 20:51, Alex Bee wrote:
>>>>> Document the compatible for RK3128's HDMI controller block.
>>>>> The integration for this SoC is somewhat different here: It needs the PHY's
>>>> Please wrap commit message according to Linux coding style / submission
>>>> process (neither too early nor over the limit):
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L597
>>> OK. Not sure why checkpatch --strict  didn't tell me that I'm over the 
>>> limit here.
>>>>
>>>>> reference clock rate to calculate the ddc bus frequency correctly. This
>>>>> clock is part of a power-domain (PD_VIO), so this gets added as an optional
>>>>> property too.
>>>> If clock is part of power domain, then the power domain must be in the
>>>> clock controller, not here. So either you put power domain in wrong
>>>> place or you used incorrect reason for a change.
>>>   Rockchip defines it's powerdomains per clock and I was little to much 
>>> in that world when writing this. Actually the controller itself is part 
>>> of the powerdomain. Will rephrase.
>>
>> Does it mean you have like 200 different power domains in one SoC? Then
>> how are they different than clock if there is one-to-one mapping?
> 
> It's more like the other way around. Controllers and their clocks belong
> to specific power-domains. So there are of course more clocks than domains.

That's fine and expected. Here the comment was suggested that you need
to add power-domain because clock is in power-domain. That would be
clearly wrong and instead the clock controller should model the power
domain relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Best regards,
Krzysztof