On 02/01/2018 08:57 AM, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 12:10 AM, Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Jassi, >> >> On 01/27/2018 05:44 AM, Jassi Brar wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 10:26 PM, Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hi Jassi, >>>> >>>> On 12/29/2017 08:14 AM, Jassi Brar wrote: >>>>> Hi Bjorn, >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Bjorn Andersson >>>>> <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri 22 Dec 20:57 PST 2017, Jassi Brar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>>> There is a clock controller functionality provided by the APCS hardware >>>>>>>> block of msm8916 devices. The device-tree would represent an APCS node >>>>>>>> with both mailbox and clock provider properties. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The spec might depict a 'clock' box and 'mailbox' box inside the >>>>>>> bigger APCS box. However, from the code I see in this patchset, they >>>>>>> are orthogonal and can & should be represented as independent DT >>>>>>> nodes. >>>>>> >>>>>> The APCS consists of a number of different hardware blocks, one of them >>>>>> being the "APCS global" block, which is what this node and drivers >>>>>> relate to. On 8916 this contains both the IPC register and clock >>>>>> control. But it's still just one block according to the hardware >>>>>> specification. >>>>>> >>>>>> As such DT should describe the one hardware block by one node IMHO. >>>>>> >>>>> In my even humbler opinion, DT should describe a h/w functional unit >>>>> which _could_ be seen as a standalone component. >>>> >>>> The APCS is one separate register block related to the CPU cluster. I >>>> haven't seen any strict guidelines for such cases in the DT docs, and >>>> during the discussion got the impression that this is the preferred >>>> binding. Rob has also reviewed the binding, so we should be fine to move >>>> forward with this one. >>>> >>> Well, I can't overrule Rob. But I am really not happy with random >>> device spawning from mailbox drivers. I know there are such instances >>> already in the kernel but that doesn't make it legit... unless there >>> is some hard dependency. Is there? >> >> The dependency is that on this SoC, these functionalities are combined >> into this "CPU subsystem" block. >> > I see the register space is shared between mailbox and the clock. So I > guess, yes, simply creating a device here and passing the common > regmap is tidier. Which patches are already picked up? Patches 3, 4 and 6 are already picked into the clk tree. Still pending are patches 1, 2 and 5. Thanks, Georgi -- 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
