Hi Stephen, Sorry for the long email, I want to describe things more clear to help the review. First, i want to share some backgrounds on how this patch series comes from, it mainly consists of three reasons: 1. New architecture to save a lot duplicated codes We want to write a more generic <soc>-ss-<subsys>.dtsi shared by imx8qxp, imx8qm, imx8dx, imx8dm according to HW characteristic then we'd better decouple the dependency of Clock ID definitions from device tree due to the SS and device availability difference among them. [00/14] arm64: dts: imx8: architecture improvement and adding imx8qm support https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10824537/ 2. Power domain requirements Both SCU and LPCG clock access requires it's associated power domain enabled, CCF already supports it and device tree seems to be the best place to describe it. e.g. arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos5433.dtsi cmu_aud: clock-controller@114c0000 { compatible = "samsung,exynos5433-cmu-aud"; #clock-cells = <1>; .... power-domains = <&pd_aud>; }; Furthermore, if the power domain is off (e.g. during system suspend) the clock state Within this domain will be lost and we have to restored it after power domain is re-enabled. We'd like to use common driver suspend/resume to handle it. (In the future, we might support Runtime state save&restore as well in order to shut down the whole SS if not used, that also need power domain info from DT). 3. Partition support IMX SCU firmware supports Resource Partition service which allows each device resource to be partitioned into different ownership groupings that are associated with different execution environments including multiple operating systems executing on different cores, TrustZone, and hypervisor. That means we can't register all the clocks in Linux as some of them may not belong to us and can't access. (we can check all the clocks via SCU RPC call before register, but that also needs a branch of time. However, LPCG not easy to check as it does not provide resource id). Putting clocks of device in DT allows the dynamically configuration of it according to the real partition requirements. E.g. Remove some clock/device nodes once not belong to Linux OS partition or not exist in hardware on this SoC SS. And please see below for my replies to other of your questions: > From: Stephen Boyd [mailto:sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 3:46 AM > Quoting Aisheng Dong (2019-02-21 10:03:47) > > MX8QM and MX8QXP LPCG Clocks are mostly the same except they may > > reside in different subsystems across CPUs and also vary a bit on the > availability. > > > > Same as SCU clock, we want to move the clock definition into device > > tree which can fully decouple the dependency of Clock ID definition > > from device tree. And no frequent changes required in clock driver any > > more to handle the difference. > > > > We can use the existence of clock nodes in device tree to address the > > device and clock availability differences across different SoCs. > > This sounds similar to what TI folks are doing with their new firmware. > It leads to problems where we don't know what in the clk tree needs to be > registered, AFAICT we know what clocks need to be registered according to the device availability in each SS (Subsystem) in HW definition. Am I missed something? > debugfs is not super helpful in that case, Debugfs functions the same as defining clocks in driver. Every cock defined in driver can be defined in device tree according to HW configuration and displayed with debugfs. So I'm not quite get the point of the concern. Can you help clarify a bit more? > and late init only turns off > clks that are found during probe (so nothing then?). Same as above. BTW, we did not support turn off clocks for LPCG during late init. Probably won't support in the future as LPCG is the next level gates of SCU clocks. Gating off LPCG clocks while SCU clocks disabled already looks not so meaningful, right? And gate off such type LPCG is quite expensive as LPCG needs enable its power domain to access and chip reset already ensures the LPCG clocks are off and the later LPCG enable/disable also can sync the HW state. For the parent SCU clocks, we also still don't have the plan to support late gate off because SCU clock might be shared with M-Core OS or Secure SW (e.g. ATF, OPTee) and A core can't Gate off those "unused" ones it believes. Currently what we're doing is ensure gate off power&clocks after using in bootloader before hand over to kernel. > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx8qxp-lpcg.txt > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx8qxp-lpcg.txt > > index 965cfa4..a317844 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx8qxp-lpcg.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx8qxp-lpcg.txt > > @@ -11,6 +11,20 @@ enabled by these control bits, it might still not > > be running based on the base resource. > > > > Required properties: > > +- compatible: Should be one of: > > + "fsl,imx8qxp-lpcg" > > + "fsl,imx8qm-lpcg" followed by > "fsl,imx8qxp-lpcg". > > +- reg: Address and length of the register set. > > +- #clock-cells: Should be 1. One LPCG supports multiple > clocks. > > +- clocks: Input parent clocks phandle array for each clock. > > +- bit-offset: An integer array indicating the bit offset for each > clock. > > +- hw-autogate: Boolean array indicating whether supports HW > autogate for > > + each clock. > > This looks like one clk per node style of bindings which is a direction we don't > want DT bindings to go in. It leads to a bunch of time parsing DT to generate > clks and in general doesn't represent the clock controller hardware that is > there. Basically, anything with 'bit-offset' > in the binding is not going to be acceptable. > It's one LPCG per node which represents a couple of clock output gates controlled by this LPCG for one specific module. For MX8QM/QXP platforms, there're separate LPCGs for each device resource. LPCGs are independent with each other with separate io space, behaving separate module clock controllers and they are distributed in different SS (subsystems). Describing it separately in device tree is more comply with real hardware although it sacrifices a bit parsing time. Regards Dong Aisheng > > +- clock-output-names: Shall be the corresponding names of the outputs. > > + NOTE this property must be specified in the > same order > > + as the clock bit-offset and hw-autogate property. > > + > > +Legacy binding (DEPRECATED): > > - compatible: Should be one of: > > "fsl,imx8qxp-lpcg-adma",
