Hi Tero,
> Il 12/04/2021 09:41 Tero Kristo <kristo@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
>
>
> On 11/04/2021 22:30, Dario Binacchi wrote:
> >
> >> Il 09/04/2021 12:32 Tero Kristo <kristo@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 08/04/2021 23:24, Dario Binacchi wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Il 07/04/2021 15:21 Tero Kristo <kristo@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 07/04/2021 15:52, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 2:07 AM Dario Binacchi <dariobin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Il 07/04/2021 03:16 Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 5:02 PM Dario Binacchi <dariobin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Il 06/04/2021 16:06 Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 2:21 PM Dario Binacchi <dariobin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The series comes from my commit in U-boot
> >>>>>>>>>> d64b9cdcd4 ("fdt: translate address if #size-cells = <0>")
> >>>>>>>>>> and from the subsequent exchange of emails at the end of which I was
> >>>>>>>>>> suggested to send the patch to the linux kernel
> >>>>>>>>>> (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/1614324949-61314-1-git-send-email-bmeng.cn@xxxxxxxxx/).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It's 'ranges' that determines translatable which is missing from the
> >>>>>>>>> DT. This should have not had a 0 size either though maybe we could
> >>>>>>>>> support that.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I have replied to the email you sent to the u-boot mailing list
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Does the DT have to be updated anyways for your spread spectrum support?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The spread spectrum support patch does not need this patch to work. They belong
> >>>>>>>> to two different series.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That's not what I asked. Is the spread spectrum support forcing a DT
> >>>>>>> update for users?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes, the deltam and modfreq registers must be added to the DPLL clocks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's a shame given this dts has been mostly untouched since 2013.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think technically it would be possible to map these registers within
> >>>> the driver also, seeing there are like a handful of the DPLLs for both
> >>>> am3/am4 which are impacted. Just add a new compatible or something, or
> >>>> alternatively parse the register addresses and populate the
> >>>> deltam/modfreq registers based on that.
> >>>
> >>> I have not added new compatibles, but I have added the offset of the delta and modfreq
> >>> registers to the data structures used by the DPLL drivers and I have set them in the
> >>> related setup functions.
> >>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1406590/
> >>
> >> True, I just said that technically it would be possible to add this data
> >> within the driver itself to avoid modifying DT if that would be preferred.
> >
> > In the review of the series no one asked not to change the device tree but it is also true
> > that no review has been made on the patch 'clk: ti: add am33xx / am43xx spread spectrum clock support',
> > the one to be applied on the drivers that support the SSC.
> > I take this opportunity to ask you if you can kindly review that patch.
>
> The clock driver patch itself seems fine, the devil is on the DT side,
> and how we are going to re-arrange the DT data to accommodate it.
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>> If the DT has to be changed anyways (not really
> >>>>>>> great policy), then you could fix this in the DT at the same time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I could put the fix to the device tree in that series, although I wouldn't
> >>>>>> create a single patch to fix and add the SSC registers. First the size-cells = <0>
> >>>>>> fix patch and then the SSC patch.
> >>>>>> Do you agree?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> By at the same time, I really just meant within 1 release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But I'd like to hear TI maintainers' thoughts on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> I did post a comment on patch #1 questioning the approach from TI clock
> >>>> driver perspective, imho I can't see why these two patches would be
> >>>> needed right now.
> >>
> >> Fix to above, it was patch #2 I was referring to.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Because U-boot maintainers asked me after I sent them my patch on this issue.
> >>> I believe that the email exchange that took place in the U-boot (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/1614324949-61314-1-git-send-email-bmeng.cn@xxxxxxxxx/)
> >>> and Linux kernel mailing lists showed that:
> >>> - The patch 'fdt: translate address if # size-cells = <0>' is wrong (U-boot has accepted
> >>> it, and it will have to be reverted).
> >>> - However, the same patch highlighted that it is wrong to use the size-cells = <0> property
> >>> in the prcm_clocks and scm_clocks nodes of device tree.
> >>> - Rob agrees that in the case of the am3xx this is the right choice:
> >>
> >> Well, I don't quite like where this is ending at. Basically you are just
> >> modifying the am3/am4 DTs adding a size spec for every clock node. This
> >> leaves the omap3/omap4/omap5/dra7 in the old format. Should someone
> >> convert those also? Has anybody tested what happens with the u-boot
> >> change on those platforms? Or with the kernel change proposed for the TI
> >> clock driver?
> >>
> >> Also, none of this changes the fact that imho patch #2 in this series is
> >> wrong and should be fixed. Doing ioremap for every clock node is at
> >> least costly (dra7xx has some 180 clock nodes based on quick grep) and
> >> also potentially breaks things (you get extremely fragmented iomappings,
> >> and some of them might even get rejected because you end up in the same
> >> 4K page), and should be avoided.
> >
> > You are right, and in fact in my previous email, I proposed only to change the
> > ti_clk_get_reg_addr() from:
> > - if (of_property_read_u32_index (node, "reg", index, & val)) {
> > + if (of_property_read_u32_index (node, "reg", index * 2, & val)) {
> > following the change of size-cells from 0 to 1 in the DTS, without ioremap.
>
> Yep that would be ok, assuming we change the DT in the manner proposed.
>
> >
> >> If things would be fixed properly, we would get rid of the clock nodes
> >> from the DT completely and just leave the clock providers in place;
> >> clocks would be specified via something like 'clocks = <&prcm
> >> AM3_ADC_TSC_FCK>;'
> >
> > In which node of the device tree should the 'clocks = <&prcm AM3_ADC_TSC_FCK>;'
> > property be found?
>
> This would be used to replace the device nodes, e.g. currently we have
> clocks = <&adc_tsc_fck> under the tscadc node under am4, this would
> change to <&prcm AM3_ADC_TSC_FCK>. Similar to any other clock entry
> under every device on the platform.
>
> > Could you please briefly describe how the device tree would change?
> > The clock nodes would be removed but I am not clear how the rest of the device
> > tree would change.
> > Would this solution only impact the device trees and the code of the am3 / am4
> > architectures?
>
> The change on the DT itself would be pretty large, removing all clock
> nodes and modifying any existing handles towards the clock nodes, and
> this would impact all OMAP architectures.
>
> Anyways, it is mostly up-to Tony how he wants to see the DT change, as
> he is the maintainer for the OMAP family DT data.
>
> I am just raising the opinion here that from kernel point of view,
> adding the missing size cells seems unnecessary, and I can't see why
> u-boot can't be changed to support the existing broken DT. It is broken
> now, and it will be broken with the addition of the size cells in place,
> and the actual "neat" end result would be to get rid of the clock nodes
> completely.
I'll fix U-boot.
Thanks for your explanations.
Hope for SSC patch review from you and/or some TI MAINTAINER.
Thanks and regards,
Dario
>
> -Tero
>
> >
> > Thanks and regards,
> > Dario
> >
> >> similar to what is done with the clkctrl entries, and
> >> rest of the clock data would be built-in to the clock driver. This would
> >> completely get rid of any future compatibility issues and the need to
> >> tweak the DT if some clock driver would need modifications to support
> >> some new feature.
> >>
> >> -Tero
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx-l4.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx-l4.dtsi
> >>> index 1fb22088caeb..59b0a0cf211e 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx-l4.dtsi
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx-l4.dtsi
> >>> @@ -110,7 +110,8 @@
> >>>
> >>> prcm_clocks: clocks {
> >>> #address-cells = <1>;
> >>> - #size-cells = <0>;
> >>> + #size-cells = <1>;
> >>> + ranges = <0 0 0x2000>;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> prcm_clockdomains: clockdomains {
> >>> @@ -320,7 +321,8 @@
> >>>
> >>> scm_clocks: clocks {
> >>> #address-cells = <1>;
> >>> - #size-cells = <0>;
> >>> + #size-cells = <1>;
> >>> + ranges = <0 0 0x800>;
> >>> };
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx-clocks.dtsi
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx-clocks.dtsi
> >>> @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
> >>> compatible = "ti,mux-clock";
> >>> clocks = <&virt_19200000_ck>, <&virt_24000000_ck>, <&virt_25000000_ck>, <&virt_26000000_ck>;
> >>> ti,bit-shift = <22>;
> >>> - reg = <0x0040>;
> >>> + reg = <0x0040 0x4>;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> adc_tsc_fck: adc_tsc_fck {
> >>> @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@
> >>> compatible = "ti,gate-clock";
> >>> clocks = <&l4ls_gclk>;
> >>> ti,bit-shift = <0>;
> >>> - reg = <0x0664>;
> >>> + reg = <0x0664 0x04>;
> >>> };
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>> - U-boot rightly wants to use the same device tree as the Kernel.
> >>> - IMHO, if I'm not missing something, I think using a #size-cells = <1>; for clocks
> >>> it requires only one code change in the ti_clk_get_reg_addr():
> >>>
> >>> --- a/drivers/clk/ti/clk.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/ti/clk.c
> >>> @@ -265,9 +265,27 @@ int __init ti_clk_retry_init(struct device_node *node, void *user,
> >>> int ti_clk_get_reg_addr(struct device_node *node, int index,
> >>> struct clk_omap_reg *reg)
> >>>
> >>> - if (of_property_read_u32_index(node, "reg", index, &val)) {
> >>> + if (of_property_read_u32_index(node, "reg", index * 2, &val)) {
> >>>
> >>> The other changes to develop affect device trees of architectures which, like am3, currently
> >>> use #size-cells = <0>.
> >>>
> >>> IMHO, all this would lead to an improvement of the device trees with minimal impact on the code.
> >>> It would benefit U-boot, which would not have to develop special platform code and any new
> >>> architectures that would inherit from these DTs.
> >>>
> >>> If you think it might be worth it, I am available to develop this patch.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks and regards,
> >>> Dario
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -Tero
