On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 11:46:23PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > > On 17 September 2022 22:44:00 GMT+03:00, Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 08:57:44PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote: > >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 04:45:21PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >> > On Sat, 17 Sept 2022 at 00:54, Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 11:31:49PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >> > > > On Fri, 16 Sept 2022 at 23:27, Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 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? > >> > > > > >> > > > Sounds good to me. > >> > > > > >> > > > I'd even say clock/qcom,kpss-acc-v1.yaml and > >> > > > arm/msm/qcom,kpss-acc-v2.yaml or maybe power/qcom,kpss-acc-v2.yaml > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Wonder if the gcc driver should have the same tretement? It's also a > >> > > clock-controller driver that doesn't use clock at all... Do you have > >> > > some info about it? > >> > > >> > As far as I understand, the kpss-gcc is a normal clock controller, > >> > isn't it? It provides clocks to other devices. > >> > > >> > >> Hi again... Having acc-v2 as power-controller would require to set > >> #power-domain-cells = <0>; > > Why? I don't think so. Rob/Krzysztof, please correct me if I'm wrong. > make dtbs_check and dt_binding_check complains about that. > >> > >> Would that be acceptable? Considering it wouldn't expose any PM domain? > >> > >> About kpss-gcc we have some device that for some reason doesn't have the > >> required clocks defined in the dts. I checked the related gcc and no PXO > >> defined and no pll8_vote clock defined. (the affected dts are all listed > >> in the related Documentation) > >> > >> No idea how they currently work with the kpss-gcc driver as these > >> parents are missing. Guess the driver just fails to probe? > >> So this was the question if you had more info about it... since to me it > >> seems just another gcc v2 that doesn't expose clocks but it's just a > >> power-controller just like acc-v2. > >> > >> -- > >> Ansuel > > > >(Also sorry for the double email) > >I'm checking the regs for apq8084 for example (from the dtsi) > >Are we really sure they are power-controller? > > It looks like it's a regularor on steroids. See krait-regulator.c and corresponding bindings in msm-3.10/3.14. So I'd use either the regulator or the power-controller (with significant bias towards controller) > Ok so on that platform they are both power-controller(saw and acc)... Think we only need to understand about the binding power-domain-cells binding... Will check the driver and binding on msm-3.10 > >Checking the regs it seems they just changed the location and they > >placed clock-controller and right after the power-controller. > >So one can get confused and say that 0xf9... can be all related to power > >controller. I posted the regs for reference. > > > >acc0 0xf9088000 0x1000 > >saw0 0xf9089000 0x1000 > > > >acc1 0xf9098000 0x1000 > >saw1 0xf9099000 0x1000 > > > >acc2 0xf90a8000 0x1000 > >saw2 0xf90b9000 0x1000 > > > >Anyway while at it there seems to be a bit of confusion about the naming > >here... We have on ipq8064 and ipq4019 the saw node set as regulator and > >with the regulator binding but on msm8974 and apq8084 the saw node set > >as power-controller (with the l2 node with the regulator binding). > > > >Think we should chose a name and fix every dts. > >So the main question here is... > >Should we keep acc as clock-controller or change it to power-controller > >(for v2)? > > > >Should we change saw node to regulator or power-controller? > > > >From what I know acc are used to enable the cpu so it seems sane to keep > >them as clock-controller (even if v2 doesn't export clock) > >Saw node handle power (and in theory even low power state) so it seems > >sane to change them to power-controller. > > > >Currently we have no warning for saw node as they are not converted to > >yaml but as soon as someone convert the txt to yaml then we will have > >all sort of inconsistency so better take a decision now instead of > >convert saw to yaml and then change acc node again to fix them for good. > > > The saw is definitely a bigger thing than just a regularor (or a set of them). It is used to control pmics, it handles low-power states, so `power-controller'. > > -- > With best wishes > Dmitry -- Ansuel