Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq6018: add #power-domain-cells for gcc node

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 04/01/2024 11:55, Fenglin Wu wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/4/2024 6:49 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 12:41, Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/4/2024 6:32 PM, Robert Marko wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 04. 01. 2024. 11:16, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>> On 4.01.2024 11:13, Fenglin Wu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/4/2024 5:53 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 10:06, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay
>>>>>>> <devnull+quic_fenglinw.quicinc.com@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Property '#power-domain-cells' is required as per defined in
>>>>>>>> qcom,gcc.yaml
>>>>>>>> so add it for ipq6018 gcc device node to eliminate following
>>>>>>>> warning in
>>>>>>>> dtbs_check:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb: gcc@1800000:
>>>>>>>>            '#power-domain-cells' is a required property
>>>>>>>> from schema $id:
>>>>>>>> http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml#
>>>>>>> But ipq6018 doesn't implement GDSC support. So for the sake of fixing
>>>>>>> the warning you are adding a bogus property.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. However, there are also some gcc drivers not implementing
>>>>>> GDSC support but the bindings are adding '#power-domain-cells' in the
>>>>>> DT example, such as: qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq4019.yaml,
>>>>>> qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-msm8660.yaml.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually I thought that maybe we should do a clean up by removing
>>>>>> '#power-domain-cells' out of the qcom,gcc.yaml binding and only
>>>>>> adding it into individual qcom,gcc-xxx.yaml for the driver which has
>>>>>> implemented GDSC support. I checked this with Taniya offline, but she
>>>>>> prefers only fixing it in ipq6018.dtsi as it doesn't hurt anything by
>>>>>> adding the property, and she expects the GDSC support should be
>>>>>> existing in most of qcom,gcc drivers especially the newer Qcom chipsets.
>>>>> Before we start changing anything, we should assess whether these
>>>>> platforms actually have GDSCs within this clock controller block,
>>>>> even if they are (currently) not described in the clk driver.
>>>> Hi,
>>>> IPQ6018 has GDSC-s, at least for the USB-s.
>>>> I tried configuring them a while ago, but the USB2.0 GDSC seems to
>>>> either have a HW bug or
>>>> it uses some special configuration as its status bits never show that
>>>> its ON [1].
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/patch/20231025104457.628109-2-robimarko@gmail.com/
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the link! I checked the spec internal, and I did see GDSC
>>> device for USB0/USB1 controller is present in GCC clock controller.
>>> So considering there is a patch ongoing to add GDSC device for ipq6018
>>> gcc driver, can the DT commit which adds '#power-domain-cells' be accepted?
>>
>> What for?
> Maria (quic_aiquny@quicinc.com, copied) is working on automation tool in 
> Qcom internally to check dt_binding and dtbs and she expects all the 

Check existing tree is trivial, I had something running months ago.
Unless you meant checking patches before you send them?

> warnings/errors reported on Qcom board files can be fixed. She can help 
> to comment further.

Anyway, fixing something incorrectly just because your tool cannot
handle existing issues, is not the reason.


Best regards,
Krzysztof