--- Begin Message ---
- To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Document assigned-clocks and assigned-clock-rates
- From: Cristian Ciocaltea <cristian.ciocaltea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 11:59:27 +0200
- Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx>, Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@xxxxxxx>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@xxxxxxxxx>, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>, Nicolas Frattaroli <frattaroli.nicolas@xxxxxxxxx>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxxx>, Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@xxxxxxxxxx>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Albert Ou <aou@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Drake <drake@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Katsuhiro Suzuki <katsuhiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-rockchip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <20230316222619.r4jzk3lzdxzamr2s@bogus>
- References: <20230315114806.3819515-1-cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com> <20230315114806.3819515-2-cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com> <20230316203417.GA3833267-robh@kernel.org> <20230316222619.r4jzk3lzdxzamr2s@bogus>
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.2
On 3/17/23 00:26, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 03:34:17PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
+Stephen
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 01:47:56PM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
Since commit df4fdd0db475 ("dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict
protocol child node properties") the following dtbs_check warning is
shown:
rk3588-rock-5b.dtb: scmi: protocol@14: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('assigned-clock-rates', 'assigned-clocks' were unexpected)
I think that's a somewhat questionable use of assigned-clock-rates. It
should be located with the consumer rather than the provider IMO. The
consumers of those 2 clocks are the CPU nodes.
Agreed. We definitely don't use those in the scmi clk provider driver.
So NACK for the generic SCMI binding change.
According to [1], "configuration of common clocks, which affect multiple
consumer devices can be similarly specified in the clock provider node".
That would avoid duplicating assigned-clock-rates in the CPU nodes.
[1]
https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/blob/main/dtschema/schemas/clock/clock.yaml
Thanks,
Cristian
--- End Message ---
