Re: [PATCH V5 1/4] clk: meson: S4: add support for Amlogic S4 SoC PLL clock driver and bindings

[Yu Tu <yu.tu@amlogic.com>]

Hi Jerome ,

On 2022/11/28 20:33, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
> 
> 
> On Mon 28 Nov 2022 at 15:39, Yu Tu <yu.tu@amlogic.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jerome,
>> 	Thank you for your reply.
>>
>> On 2022/11/25 17:23, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>>> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>>> On Wed 23 Nov 2022 at 14:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 23/11/2022 14:23, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23/11/2022 12:16, Yu Tu wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>>>>        Thank you for your reply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022/11/23 18:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 23/11/2022 03:13, Yu Tu wrote:
>>>>>>>> Add the S4 PLL clock controller found and bindings in the s4 SoC family.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Tu <yu.tu@amlogic.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>     .../bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml   |  51 +
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is v5 and still bindings are here? Bindings are always separate
>>>>>>> patches. Use subject prefixes matching the subsystem (git log --oneline
>>>>>>> -- ...).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And this was split, wasn't it? What happened here?!?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Put bindings and clock driver patch together from Jerome. Maybe you can read this chat history.
>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.or/all/1jy1v6z14n.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> Jerome was asking you to send 2 patchsets, one with :
>>>>> - bindings in separate patches
>>>>> - drivers in separate patches
>>>>> and a second with DT changes.
>>> Indeed, this is what was asked. It is aligned with Krzysztof's request.
>>
>> According to your discussion, I still should send patches in the previous
>> way in series. But I'm going to change it like you suggested.
>> I don't know, am I getting it right?
> 
> 3 people tried to explain this already and we all told you the same thing.
> 
> * 1 patchset per maintainer: clk and dt
> * bindings must be dedicated patches - never mixed with driver code.
> 
> I strongly suggest that you take some time to (re)read:
> * https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html
> * https://docs.kernel.org/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.html
> 
> If still unclear, please take some time to look at the kernel mailing
> list archive and see how others have done the same things.
> 
> Thx.

I'll change it as you suggest.But I still don't understand what you 
suggested in V3.

I remember discussing it with you at V3.
https://lore.kernel.or/all/1jy1v6z14n.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com/

">>>> Also it would be nice to split this in two series.
 >>>> Bindings and drivers in one, arm64 dt in the other. These changes goes
 >>>> in through different trees.
 >>> At present, Bindings, DTS and drivers are three series. Do you mean 
to put
 >>> Bindings and drivers together? If so, checkpatch.pl will report a 
warning.
 >> Yes because patches are not in yet so there is a good reason to ignore
 >> the warning. Warning will never show up on the actual tree if the
 >> patches are correctly ordered.
 >
 > I think Binding, DTS and drivers use three series and you said two series
 > is not a big problem. Three series are recommended for checkpatch.pl, I
 > think it should be easy for that to separate and merge。

No - There is only 2 series. 1 for the bindings and clock drivers and
one for the DT once things are in"

> 
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then when the bindings + clocks patches are merged, a pull request of the bindings
>>>>> can be done to me so I can merge it with DT.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     MAINTAINERS                                   |   1 +
>>>>>>>>     drivers/clk/meson/Kconfig                     |  13 +
>>>>>>>>     drivers/clk/meson/Makefile                    |   1 +
>>>>>>>>     drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.c                    | 875 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>     drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.h                    |  88 ++
>>>>>>>>     .../dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.h   |  30 +
>>>>>>>>     7 files changed, 1059 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>     create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml
>>>>>>>>     create mode 100644 drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.c
>>>>>>>>     create mode 100644 drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.h
>>>>>>>>     create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.h
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml
>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>>> index 000000000000..fd517e8ef14f
>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml
>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
>>>>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>>>>>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>>>>>>> +---
>>>>>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml#
>>>>>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +title: Amlogic Meson S serials PLL Clock Controller
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +maintainers:
>>>>>>>> +  - Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>
>>>>>>>> +  - Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
>>>>>>>> +  - Yu Tu <yu.hu@amlogic.com>
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> One blank line.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I will delete this, on next version patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +properties:
>>>>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>>>>> +    const: amlogic,s4-pll-clkc
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +  reg:
>>>>>>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +  clocks:
>>>>>>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +  clock-names:
>>>>>>>> +    items:
>>>>>>>> +      - const: xtal
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +  "#clock-cells":
>>>>>>>> +    const: 1
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +required:
>>>>>>>> +  - compatible
>>>>>>>> +  - reg
>>>>>>>> +  - clocks
>>>>>>>> +  - clock-names
>>>>>>>> +  - "#clock-cells"
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +additionalProperties: false
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +examples:
>>>>>>>> +  - |
>>>>>>>> +    clkc_pll: clock-controller@fe008000 {
>>>>>>>> +      compatible = "amlogic,s4-pll-clkc";
>>>>>>>> +      reg = <0xfe008000 0x1e8>;
>>>>>>>> +      clocks = <&xtal>;
>>>>>>>> +      clock-names = "xtal";
>>>>>>>> +      #clock-cells = <1>;
>>>>>>>> +    };
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +#endif /* __MESON_S4_PLL_H__ */
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.h
>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>>> index 000000000000..345f87023886
>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.h
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This belongs to bindings patch, not driver.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
>>>>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
>>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2021 Amlogic, Inc. All rights reserved.
>>>>>>>> + * Author: Yu Tu <yu.tu@amlogic.com>
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +#ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_CLOCK_AMLOGIC_S4_PLL_CLKC_H
>>>>>>>> +#define _DT_BINDINGS_CLOCK_AMLOGIC_S4_PLL_CLKC_H
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>>> + * CLKID index values
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +#define CLKID_FIXED_PLL            1
>>>>>>>> +#define CLKID_FCLK_DIV2            3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indexes start from 0 and are incremented by 1. Not by 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NAK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remember Jerome discussing this with you.You can look at this submission history.
>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c088e01c-0714-82be-8347-6140daf56640@linaro.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Historically we did that by only exposing part of the numbers, controlling which
>>>>> clocks were part of the bindings.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it seems this doesn't make sens anymore, maybe it would be time to put all the
>>>>> clock ids in the bindings for this new SoC and break with the previous strategy.
>>> Krzysztof and I agreed there is nothing wrong with the current
>>> approach, I believe.
>>> It does not prevent someone from using an un-exposed clock, sure, or
>>> exposing it in the future if necessary.
>>> However, I think it clearly shows that an un-exposed element is not
>>> expected to be used by an external consumers. It should be enough to
>>> trigger a discussion if this expectation is wrong.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the outcome of the previous discussion was somewhere later in that
>>>> thread:
>>>>
>>>>> It is just a choice to not expose some IDs.
>>>>> It is not tied to the implementation at all.
>>>>> I think we actually follow the rules and the idea behind it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Krzysztof
>>> .
> 
> .