On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:22:17PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 23:13, Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:06:35PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 22:43, Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 02:17:15PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 04:22:53PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > > > > > Convert kpss-acc driver Documentation to yaml.
> > > > > > The original Documentation was wrong all along. Fix it while we are
> > > > > > converting it.
> > > > > > The example was wrong as kpss-acc-v2 should only expose the regs but we
> > > > > > don't have any driver that expose additional clocks. The kpss-acc driver
> > > > > > is only specific to v1. For this exact reason, limit all the additional
> > > > > > bindings (clocks, clock-names, clock-output-names and #clock-cells) to
> > > > > > v1 and also flag that these bindings should NOT be used for v2.
> > > > >
> > > > > Odd that a clock controller has no clocks, but okay.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > As said in the commit v2 is only used for regs. v2 it's only used in
> > > > arch/arm/mach-qcom/platsmp.c to setup stuff cpu hotplug and bringup.
> > > >
> > > > Should we split the 2 driver? To me the acc naming seems to be just
> > > > recycled for v2 and it's not really a clk controller.
> > > >
> > > > So keeping v2 in arm/msm/qcom,kpss-acc-v2.yaml and v1 moved to clock?
> > >
> > > I suspect that qcom,kpss-acc-v2 is misnamed as the "clock-controller".
> > > According to msm-3.10, these regions are used by the Krait core
> > > regulators.
> > >
> >
> > Well we need to understand how to handle this... change the compatible
> > it's a nono for sure. In platsmp.c they are used for cpu power control
> > so could be that they are actually used to regulators. I would honestly
> > move v1 to clock and leave v2 to arm/msm but I'm not cetain on what name
> > to assign to the 2 yaml.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> This is fine for me. If somebody gets better understanding of
> underlying hardware and works on actually using these blocks, he will
> update the bindings.
>
> My only suggestion would be to rename kpss-acc-v2 nodes to
> 'power-controller@address' and document them so.
>
Ok so something like this?
power-controller@f9088000 {
compatible = "qcom,kpss-acc-v2";
reg = <0xf9088000 0x1000>,
<0xf9008000 0x1000>;
};
(and I will have to fix dtbs warning as they will be unmatched I think.)
Yaml naming:
qcom,kpss-acc-v1.yaml
qcom,kpss-acc-v2.yaml
Right?
--
Ansuel
