Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: clock: qcom: glymur-gcc: Add missing CX power domain

[Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 04:42:11PM +0530, Taniya Das wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/16/2026 12:52 PM, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > On 26-07-16 10:13:48, Taniya Das wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/15/2026 6:59 PM, Abel Vesa wrote:
> >>> The GDSCs provided by the Glymur GCC are supplied by the RPMh CX power
> >>> domain. Model that parent domain in the GCC binding so the provider can
> >>> describe the dependency in devicetree.
> >>>
> >>> Add a single CX power-domain entry to the binding and make it required,
> >>> matching the hardware description needed by the GCC node.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: ee2d967030fe ("dt-bindings: clock: qcom: document the Glymur Global Clock Controller")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@oss.qualcomm.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,glymur-gcc.yaml | 8 ++++++++
> >>>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >>
> >>
> >> Abel, I feel we should add the 'required-opps' as well which will ensure
> >> the clock controllers minimum voltage requirement.
> > 
> > But it was agreed in v1 that we should not add the required-opps. So we
> > dropped it in v2.
> > 
> 
> Okay, sorry, may be I missed that comment.
> 
> 
> > Can you give more details to why you think it is needed ?
> 
> My reasoning is that if a clock controller requires a rail, it is
> preferable to explicitly specify the required operating level rather
> than rely on system/client vote. This makes the dependency
> self-contained and easier to reason about. Clients that require a higher
> operating level than the clock controller's minimum requirement remain
> free to vote for a higher level as needed.
> 

You're expressing this in generic terms, can you please provide the
concrete example of what this would look for in the Glymur GCC case? 

What is the required-opps for the Glymur GCC?

Regards,
Bjorn

> 
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Taniya Das
>