On 11/11/2022 10:34, Zhe Wang wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2022 at 3:48 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 11/11/2022 06:34, Zhe Wang wrote: >>>> >>> >>> I'll fix it. >>> >>>>> + clocks = <&apahb_gate CLK_UFS_EB>, <&apahb_gate CLK_UFS_CFG_EB>, >>>>> + <&onapb_clk CLK_UFS_AON>, <&g51_pll CLK_TGPLL_256M>; >>>>> + freq-table-hz = <0 0>, <0 0>, <0 0>, <0 0>; >>>> >>>> Why this is empty? What's the use of empty table? >>>> >>> >>> freq-table-hz is used to configure the maximum frequency and minimum >>> frequency of clk, and an empty table means that no scaling up\down >>> operation is requiredfor the frequency of these clks. >> >> No, to indicate lack of scaling you skip freq-table-hz entirely, not >> provide empty one. >> >> > > In the ufshcd-pltfrm.c file, the clock information is parsed by > executing the function ufshcd_parse_clock_info, if the number of > "freq-table-hz" is zero or if the number of "clock-names" and > "freq-table-hz" does not match, the UFS CLK information in dts will > not be obtained. Although we don't need to scaling freq, we also need > the CLK information for the CLK GATE operations. So we cannot delete > this freq-table here. I did not check the driver implementation, but if that's the case it does not match bindings. Before adding empty useless tables, please either fix bindings or driver. I think the latter - the driver - becasue clocks are not depending logically on freq-table-hz. > >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof >> > > According to the local test results just now, I would like to ask a > question about the previous revisions. >>> + >>> + sprd,ufs-anly-reg-syscon: >>> + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/phandle >>> + description: phandle of syscon used to control ufs analog reg. >> >> It's a reg? Then such syntax is expected: >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.18-rc1/source/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/samsung/exynos-usi.yaml#L42 >> > > In the syntax of this example, reg is represented by phandle and > offset, but I only need the information of phandle in this place， No. You wrote "analog reg". So one reg. Not regs. > So in > this scenario, whether my original syntax is fine？ just describe the > pandlle. No, because your description said one reg. Best regards, Krzysztof
