Re: [PATCH 00/12] soc: mediatek: pm-domains: Add new driver for SCPSYS power domains controller

Matthias Brugger
2020-10-09T12:50:56Z

On 06/10/2020 08:53, Weiyi Lu wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-09-25 at 16:04 +0200, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>>
>> On 25/09/2020 12:06, Weiyi Lu wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2020-09-10 at 19:28 +0200, Enric Balletbo i Serra wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> This is a new driver with the aim to deprecate the mtk-scpsys driver.
>>>> The problem with that driver is that, in order to support more Mediatek
>>>> SoCs you need to add some logic to handle properly the power-up
>>>> sequence of newer Mediatek SoCs, doesn't handle parent-child power
>>>> domains and need to hardcode all the clocks in the driver itself. The
>>>> result is that the driver is getting bigger and bigger every time a
>>>> new SoC needs to be supported.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Enric and Matthias,
>>>
>>> First of all, thank you for the patch. But I'm worried the problem you
>>> mentioned won't be solved even if we work on this new driver in the
>>> future. My work on the MT8183 scpsys(now v17) is to implement the new
>>> hardware logic. Here, I also see related patches, which means that these
>>> new logics are necessary. Why can't we work on the original driver?
>>
>> Well the decision was to change the driver in a not compatible way to make
>> device tree entries better. If we work on the old driver, we would need to find
>> some creative ways to handle old bindings vs new bindings.
>>
>> So I thought it would be better doing a fresh start implementing mt1873 support
>> for reference and add mt8183 as new SoC. From what I have seen mt8192 and others
>> fit the driver structure too.
>>
>>> Meanwhile, I thought maybe we should separate the driver into general
>>> control and platform data for each SoC, otherwise it'll keep getting
>>> bigger and bigger if it need to be support new SoC.
>>>
>>
>> We could in a later series split the SoC depended data structures and put them
>> in drivers/soc/mediatek/pm-domains-mt8183.h or something like this. Is that what
>> you mean?
>>
>
> Yes, that is what I want. And I guess it could avoid the collisions in
> the different defines to the control registers and power status bits you
> mentioned. Hope this will happen in this series.
>

Sounds good to me. Enric could you move the soc specific data to separate
include files?

Regards,
Matthias