Hi Doug, Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017, 20:46:12 schrieb Heiko Stübner: > Am Dienstag, 10. Januar 2017, 10:45:48 schrieb Doug Anderson: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Xing Zheng <zhengxing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > > > The structure rockchip_clk_provider needs to refer the GRF regmap > > > in somewhere, if the CRU node has not "rockchip,grf" property, > > > calling syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle will return an invalid GRF > > > regmap, and the MUXGRF type clock will be not supported. > > > > > > Therefore, we need to add them. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > - separte the binding patch > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > - add optional roperty rockchip,grf in rockchip,rk3399-cru.txt > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > - referring pmugrf for PMUGRU > > > - fix the typo "invaild" in COMMIT message > > > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi | 2 ++ > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > This seems fine to me, so: > > > > Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > ...but I will say that before you actually add any real "MUXGRF" > > clocks on rk3399 you _might_ need to rework the code to make things > > truly "optional". If it turns out that any existing clocks that > > already exist today already go through one of these muxes in the GRF > > and we've always been assuming one setting of the mux, we'll need to > > make sure we keep assuming that setting of the mux even if the "grf" > > isn't specified. > > I guess I see that a bit more relaxed :-) . > > I.e. the GRF being optional is a remnant of syscons not being available when > the clocks get set up- so were coming in later or not at all. For the > rk3288 I converted, there we never really had the case of the GRF missing. > > And the GRF mux for the vcodec now present is not being used by anything yet > (neither driver nor binding), so no old devicetree can break. > > > As I understand it, your motivation for this patch is to eventually be > > able to model the EDP reference clock which can either be xin24 or > > "edp osc". Presumably the eDP "reference clock" isn't related to any > > of the pre-existing eDP clocks so that one should be safe. > > Same here, so far we don't even have edp or even any other graphical output > on the rk3399, so again there is no old devicetree that could break when > the grf is not specified. reading all of the above again, it feels like you essentially also said similar things already in your original reply and I misread some of it. But again, I don't see the need for any more code right now, as hopefully the simple stuff we currently only support does not have any grf-based muxes in it. Xing + Rockchip people, please correct me if I'm wrong here :-) Heiko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
