Re: [PATCH/RFC 00/14] R-Car X5H Ironhide SCMI CPG/MDLC remapping

[Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>]

Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> writes:

> Hi Kevin,
>
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2026 at 00:48, Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com> wrote:
>> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> writes:
>> > TL;DR:
>> >
>> >     Describe hardware in DT, and perform the mapping to SCMI in Linux.
>> >
>> > The Renesas R-Car X5H-based Ironhide board is the first Renesas
>> > SoC/board combination that implements the ARM System Control and
>> > Management Interface (SCMI).
>> >
>> > This means Linux can no longer perform various system operations (e.g.
>> > clock, power domain, and reset control) by accessing the hardware
>> > directly.  Instead, these operations are abstracted according to various
>> > SCMI sub-protocols, and Linux has to send messages to an SCMI-compliant
>> > firmware running on a System Control Processor (SCP).
>> > More specifically, the R-Car X5H SCP FW SCMI controls access to:
>> >   1. Core clocks and module clocks,
>> >   2. Module resets,
>> >   3. Power domains,
>>
>> I'm very curious how power domain hierarchy is described on this SoC,
>> because one more issue to add to your list is that hierarchy cannot be
>> described for power domains in SCMI.
>
> So far I had no need for such a description. AFAIK, this is handled
> inside the SCMI firmware, which does know the hierarchy.  Hence the
> firmware can power up a domain when any of its children is powered up,
> and power it down when the last of its children is powered down?

Yes, but this firwmare behavior is subject to the normal list of 
limitations/quirks/lack-of-bugs/etc. that we usually run into with
firmware.  So if there's ever a need for linux to understand hierarchy
for those reasons, you may find yourself stuck. :)

> I think the clue lies in having a PSCI top-level domain, cfr. what
> you wrote in [1]:
>
>    "But... how do I describe the relationship of this hierarchy? In
>     particular, when the SCMI-controlled PDs are actually subdomains of a
>     top-level, non-SCMI PD."
>
> Or am I missing something?

Indeed, the tricky part is when the domains may have CPUs/clusters in
them, and in my case with the TI SoCs, the top-level domain with CPU
clusters is PSCI controlled.

It wouldn't suprise me that other SoCs have similar features where some
domains are children or siblings of domains with CPUs in them.  This
kind of dependency is pretty complex to manage in just SCP firmware,
because it involves TF-A/PSCI as well, so it's a likely spot for
firmware "quirks".

Kevin