Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] dt-bindings: clock: qcom: Add GPU clocks for QCS8300

Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-10-30T11:23:34Z

On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 08:30:59AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 30/10/2024 07:59, Imran Shaik wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/29/2024 3:06 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 29/10/2024 10:23, Imran Shaik wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 10/28/2024 12:35 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>> On 28/10/2024 06:15, Imran Shaik wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 10/26/2024 5:50 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024 at 07:01:14PM +0530, Imran Shaik wrote:
> >>>>>>> The QCS8300 GPU clock controller is mostly identical to SA8775P, but
> >>>>>>> QCS8300 has few additional clocks and minor differences. Hence, reuse
> >>>>>>> SA8775P gpucc bindings and add additional clocks required for QCS8300.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> IIUC, these clocks are not valid for SA8775p. How do we deal with such
> >>>>>> cases for other Qualcomm SoCs?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> These newly added clocks are not applicable to SA8755P. In the
> >>>>> gpucc-sa8775p driver, these clocks are marked to NULL for the SA8755P,
> >>>>> ensuring they are not registered to the CCF.
> >>>>
> >>>> I meant bindings. And existing practice.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> In the bindings, the same approach is followed in other Qualcomm SoCs as
> >>> well, where additional clocks are added to the existing identical SoC’s
> >>> bindings.
> >>>
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240818204348.197788-2-danila@jiaxyga.com
> >>
> >> Exactly, defines are very different, so no, it is not the same approach.
> >>
> >
> > I believe the QCS8300 approach is same as that of SM8475. In the SM8475
> > SoC, GPLL2 and GPLL3 are the additional clock bindings compared to the
> > SM8450. Similarly, in the QCS8300, the GPU_CC_*_ACCU_SHIFT_CLK clock
> > bindings are additional to the SA8775P.
> >
> > We are also following this approach across all SoCs in the downstream
> > msm-kernel as well.
> >
> > Please let me know if I am missing anything here.
>
> Not sure, please take the same approach as SM8475, not a different one.

Just for my understanding, are you proposing to prefix the
platform-specific defines with platform name (like it was done for
SM8475)?

--
With best wishes
Dmitry