* Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq6018: add #power-domain-cells for gcc node
2024-01-04 10:16 ` Konrad Dybcio
@ 2024-01-04 10:27 ` Fenglin Wu
2024-01-04 10:30 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-01-04 10:32 ` Robert Marko
2024-01-04 10:34 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Fenglin Wu @ 2024-01-04 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konrad Dybcio, Dmitry Baryshkov, quic_tdas, quic_aiquny
Cc: kernel, Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson, Rob Herring,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Conor Dooley, linux-arm-msm, devicetree,
linux-kernel
On 1/4/2024 6:16 PM, 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.
>
I would assume '#power-domain-cells' is only required for drivers which
register GDSC as power-domain device, for drivers that only configure
GDSC during probe or for platforms have GDSC but not register them as
power-domain device, making '#power-domain-cells' as a required property
doesn't help anything but just generating more dtbs check warnings.
> Konrad
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq6018: add #power-domain-cells for gcc node
2024-01-04 10:27 ` Fenglin Wu
@ 2024-01-04 10:30 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Dmitry Baryshkov @ 2024-01-04 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fenglin Wu
Cc: Konrad Dybcio, quic_tdas, quic_aiquny, kernel, Andy Gross,
Bjorn Andersson, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Conor Dooley,
linux-arm-msm, devicetree, linux-kernel
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 12:27, Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/4/2024 6:16 PM, 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.
> >
> I would assume '#power-domain-cells' is only required for drivers which
> register GDSC as power-domain device, for drivers that only configure
> GDSC during probe or for platforms have GDSC but not register them as
> power-domain device, making '#power-domain-cells' as a required property
> doesn't help anything but just generating more dtbs check warnings.
If there is a hardware GDSC, it should be registered in software
unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq6018: add #power-domain-cells for gcc node
2024-01-04 10:16 ` Konrad Dybcio
2024-01-04 10:27 ` Fenglin Wu
@ 2024-01-04 10:32 ` Robert Marko
2024-01-04 10:40 ` Fenglin Wu
2024-01-04 10:34 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Robert Marko @ 2024-01-04 10:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konrad Dybcio, Fenglin Wu, Dmitry Baryshkov, quic_tdas,
quic_aiquny
Cc: kernel, Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson, Rob Herring,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Conor Dooley, linux-arm-msm, devicetree,
linux-kernel
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/
Regards,
Robert
>
> Konrad
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq6018: add #power-domain-cells for gcc node
2024-01-04 10:32 ` Robert Marko
@ 2024-01-04 10:40 ` Fenglin Wu
2024-01-04 10:49 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Fenglin Wu @ 2024-01-04 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert Marko, Konrad Dybcio, Dmitry Baryshkov, quic_tdas,
quic_aiquny
Cc: kernel, Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson, Rob Herring,
Krzysztof Kozlowski, Conor Dooley, linux-arm-msm, devicetree,
linux-kernel
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?
> Regards,
> Robert
>
>>
>> Konrad
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq6018: add #power-domain-cells for gcc node
2024-01-04 10:40 ` Fenglin Wu
@ 2024-01-04 10:49 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2024-01-04 10:55 ` Fenglin Wu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Dmitry Baryshkov @ 2024-01-04 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fenglin Wu
Cc: Robert Marko, Konrad Dybcio, quic_tdas, quic_aiquny, kernel,
Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski,
Conor Dooley, linux-arm-msm, devicetree, linux-kernel
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?
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq6018: add #power-domain-cells for gcc node
2024-01-04 10:49 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
@ 2024-01-04 10:55 ` Fenglin Wu
2024-01-04 12:07 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread
From: Fenglin Wu @ 2024-01-04 10:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dmitry Baryshkov
Cc: Robert Marko, Konrad Dybcio, quic_tdas, quic_aiquny, kernel,
Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski,
Conor Dooley, linux-arm-msm, devicetree, linux-kernel
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
warnings/errors reported on Qcom board files can be fixed. She can help
to comment further.
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq6018: add #power-domain-cells for gcc node
2024-01-04 10:55 ` Fenglin Wu
@ 2024-01-04 12:07 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2024-01-04 12:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Fenglin Wu, Dmitry Baryshkov
Cc: Robert Marko, Konrad Dybcio, quic_tdas, quic_aiquny, kernel,
Andy Gross, Bjorn Andersson, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski,
Conor Dooley, linux-arm-msm, devicetree, linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: qcom: ipq6018: add #power-domain-cells for gcc node
2024-01-04 10:16 ` Konrad Dybcio
2024-01-04 10:27 ` Fenglin Wu
2024-01-04 10:32 ` Robert Marko
@ 2024-01-04 10:34 ` Dmitry Baryshkov
2 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: Dmitry Baryshkov @ 2024-01-04 10:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Konrad Dybcio
Cc: Fenglin Wu, quic_tdas, quic_aiquny, kernel, Andy Gross,
Bjorn Andersson, Rob Herring, Krzysztof Kozlowski, Conor Dooley,
linux-arm-msm, devicetree, linux-kernel
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 12:16, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org> 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.
APQ8064 / MSM8960 / MSM8x60 (and thus I assume IPQ8064) have an older
power rail control mechanism called footswitch / GFS_CTL. We do not
implement it (for now), but it might be worth implementing it as the
question has been raised.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread