From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F4205C4363A for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 13:56:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7155E208C3 for ; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 13:56:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="sS0Ch+v0" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7155E208C3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=xmtfJdH1vjbaDNct3t2k0UVHiqWgxotjGpXGr0Fwoe4=; b=sS0Ch+v0qTpszsEAA1IC1xKR4 7oxNyDNoVOgsgNtr2XFNBsJLX3BVr5Y3IBpZbOzjKBEfm8/am+gxUCQzYMyW6iJ4l/WqnPeOhpxI7 y7IV49EMU6p8/RXO/ZjxrqxAPbKtQfnHv5MdZbRl07aquq9IETz3uTV9ib+dDvaxlesmUAjrl/Ck8 WMqordw2MM8UmjgHxz2RKbHj8rS6h8Vi1tkh9LccHxXOmiiA8tj/qWRbfrl5BlwcavbH1+DS8Au1Q TTb6aWIXiPML6f/SBEINonrMnq3AnKpSiZwntrUUEFDS82YyX0vY10asSrn3/eTw9cPUxbofXyMaE YhLlEAC0A==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kVxXV-0000Rm-N9; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 13:55:29 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kVxXT-0000RQ-2F for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 13:55:28 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F80D113E; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 06:55:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bogus (unknown [10.57.15.80]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3283E3F66B; Fri, 23 Oct 2020 06:55:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 14:55:21 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm,scmi: Do not use clocks for SCMI performance domains Message-ID: <20201023135521.pjv3ctpxrsg4z2oz@bogus> References: <20201020203710.10100-1-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20201021163021.lkqhum3xnyzt6pir@bogus> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20201023_095527_241368_B7205F8D X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 40.29 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-arm-kernel , Viresh Kumar Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 08:21:21AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:30 AM Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 11:20:27AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 3:37 PM Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > > > > > Commit dd461cd9183f ("opp: Allow dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table() to return > > > > -EPROBE_DEFER") handles -EPROBE_DEFER for the clock/interconnects within > > > > _allocate_opp_table() which is called from dev_pm_opp_add and it > > > > now propagates the error back to the caller. > > > > > > > > SCMI performance domain re-used clock bindings to keep it simple. However > > > > with the above mentioned change, if clock property is present in a device > > > > node, opps can't be added until clk_get succeeds. So in order to fix the > > > > issue, we can register dummy clocks which is completely ugly. > > > > > > > > Since there are no upstream users for the SCMI performance domain clock > > > > bindings, let us introduce separate performance domain bindings for the > > > > same. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla > > > > --- > > > > .../devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt | 19 ++++++++++++++++--- > > > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > Hi Rob/Viresh, > > > > > > > > This is actually a fix for the regression I reported here[1]. > > > > I am not adding fixes tag as I am targeting in the same release and > > > > also because it is not directly related. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Sudeep > > > > > > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20201015180555.gacdzkofpibkdn2e@bogus > > > > > > > > P.S.:/me records that this binding needs to be moved to yaml in v5.11 > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > > > > index 55deb68230eb..0a6c1b495403 100644 > > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arm,scmi.txt > > > > @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ as described in the following sections. If the platform supports dedicated > > > > mboxes, mbox-names and shmem shall be present in the sub-node corresponding > > > > to that protocol. > > > > > > > > -Clock/Performance bindings for the clocks/OPPs based on SCMI Message Protocol > > > > +Clock bindings for the clocks based on SCMI Message Protocol > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > This binding uses the common clock binding[1]. > > > > @@ -52,6 +52,19 @@ This binding uses the common clock binding[1]. > > > > Required properties: > > > > - #clock-cells : Should be 1. Contains the Clock ID value used by SCMI commands. > > > > > > > > +Performance bindings for the OPPs based on SCMI Message Protocol > > > > +------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > + > > > > +Required properties: > > > > +- #perf-domain-cells: Should be 1. Contains the performance domain ID value > > > > + used by SCMI commands. > > > > > > When is this not 1 (IOW, you only need this if variable)? How would it > > > be used outside SCMI (given it has a generic name)? > > > > > > > Ah, I thought we need this if phandle is followed by 1 or more arguments. > > If it is not compulsory I can drop this or make it scmi specific if we > > need it. > > No, your options are fixed or variable number of cells. If this is > generic, then maybe it needs to be variable. If it's SCMI specific > then it can likely be fixed unless you can think of other information > you may need in the cells. > Understood. > > > > + > > > > +* Property arm,scmi-perf-domain > > > > > > Yet this doesn't have a generic name. You mentioned on IRC this is > > > aligned with QCom, but why can't QCom use the same property here? > > > > > > > This is SCMI firmware driven while they have hardware driven perf/freq > > domains. So different drivers, need to distinguish between the two. > > So what if they are different drivers. That's *always* the case. The > clock provider(s) for 'clocks' is different for every SoC? I doesn't > matter who is the provider, it's the same information being described. > Fair enough. I was basing my argument on the fact that Qcom has users for those bindings and I see limited scope for consolidation as that binding has more information about the cpufreq-hw hardware block. -- Regards, Sudeep _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel