On 2022-03-14 11:50, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
On 3/14/22 1:43 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
On 2022-03-11 14:07, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
On 3/11/22 3:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 2:20 PM Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On 3/11/22 11:38 AM, Kuldeep Singh wrote:
PL022 binding require two clocks to be defined but lpc platform
doesn't
comply with bindings and define only one clock i.e apb_pclk.
Update spi clocks and clocks-names property by adding appropriate
clock
reference to make it compliant with bindings.
CC: Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Kuldeep Singh <singh.kuldeep87k@xxxxxxxxx>
---
v2:
- New patch with similar changeset
- Send to soc ML
arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
index c87066d6c995..30958e02d5e2 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lpc32xx.dtsi
@@ -178,8 +178,8 @@ ssp0: spi@20084000 {
compatible = "arm,pl022",
"arm,primecell";
reg = <0x20084000 0x1000>;
interrupts = <20
IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
- clocks = <&clk LPC32XX_CLK_SSP0>;
- clock-names = "apb_pclk";
+ clocks = <&clk LPC32XX_CLK_SSP0>,
<&clk LPC32XX_CLK_SSP0>;
+ clock-names = "sspclk", "apb_pclk";
In fact I'm uncertain if it is the right change, could it happen that
the commit
cc0f6e96c4fd ("spi: dt-bindings: Convert Arm pl022 to json-schema")
sets a wrong
schema pattern?
Good pointm this doesn't quite seem right: it is unlikely that the
same clock
is used for both the SPI bus and the APB bus.
Apparently just one clock is wanted on all observed platforms and
cases, this
is implicitly confirmed by clock handling in the
drivers/spi/spi-pl022.c :
pl022->clk = devm_clk_get(&adev->dev, NULL);
So, I would vote to fix the device tree bindings schema.
Isn't this just using the wrong name? The name of the macro
LPC32XX_CLK_SSP0 might indicate that this is indeed the SPI clock
rather than the APB clock, so we only need to change clock-names
property here and leave it unchanged otherwise.
Yes, the name is wrong, here I'm ready to take the blame:
Fixes: 93898eb775e5 ("arm: dts: lpc32xx: add clock properties to device
nodes")
Noteworthy the commit above presets the same clock name to other
PrimeCell
controllers, namely pl110 (LCD), pl080 (DMA), pl175 (EMC) and pl18x
(SD),
plus this one pl022 (SSP), and all but SSP and SD are AHB slaves in
fact.
On LPC32xx the bus clock source and function clock source for SSP is
HCLK.
My guess is that the misnamed "apb_pclk" migrated into the schema from
the lpc32xx.dtsi, so I'd suggest, unless some platform really needs it,
firstly fix the schema by removing "apb_pclk" clock. It will leave
just one
clock, so "clock-names" property can be set as optional, and the drop
the property from the lpc32xx.dtsi.
No, "apb_pclk" is part of the common AMBA binding, and is required by
the "arm,primecell" compatible. You won't (usually) find it referenced
in drivers because it's dealt with by amba_get_enable_pclk() via
amba_probe().
Thank you, it explains, why "apb_pclk" is required for all PrimeCell
controllers on the SoC. Nevertheless, in commit 93898eb775e5 it was
misidentified with the sspclk clock, the latter one is the only clock
explicitly utilized by the driver in 2015 and till today. Fixes in dts
files should be preceded by a fix in the driver.
There's nothing to fix in the driver, though. In fact it can only be
working today because the Linux driver isn't very strict and simply
assumes that the first clock entry is SSPCLK *without* considering its
name (other consumers of the binding might be stricter; I don't know),
and because presumably the HCLK happens to be enabled already anyway.
Changing the driver behaviour would only stand to cause functional
regressions.
There are effectively two bugs in the DTS here, firstly that it only has
one clock entry when it should have two, and secondly that the clock
entry which *is* present has the wrong name (or the wrong clock
specifier, depending on how you look at it). Kuldeep's patch merely
fixes the first one by fully describing the way it's currently working
in practice, so it's really just a choice of whether to treat "respect
the binding" and "describe the hardware correctly" as separate issues
and have a follow-up patch to correctly reference HCLK as the second
clock, or whether they're trivial enough to squash together.
Robin.
