On Mon 28 Nov 2022 at 15:39, Yu Tu <yu.tu@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Jerome, > Thank you for your reply. > > On 2022/11/25 17:23, Jerome Brunet wrote: >> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ] >> On Wed 23 Nov 2022 at 14:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski >> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 23/11/2022 14:23, Neil Armstrong wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 23/11/2022 12:16, Yu Tu wrote: >>>>> Hi Krzysztof, >>>>> Thank you for your reply. >>>>> >>>>> On 2022/11/23 18:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ] >>>>>> >>>>>> On 23/11/2022 03:13, Yu Tu wrote: >>>>>>> Add the S4 PLL clock controller found and bindings in the s4 SoC family. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Tu <yu.tu@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> .../bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml | 51 + >>>>>> >>>>>> This is v5 and still bindings are here? Bindings are always separate >>>>>> patches. Use subject prefixes matching the subsystem (git log --oneline >>>>>> -- ...). >>>>>> >>>>>> And this was split, wasn't it? What happened here?!? >>>>> >>>>> Put bindings and clock driver patch together from Jerome. Maybe you can read this chat history. >>>>> https://lore.kernel.or/all/1jy1v6z14n.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> >>>> Jerome was asking you to send 2 patchsets, one with : >>>> - bindings in separate patches >>>> - drivers in separate patches >>>> and a second with DT changes. >> Indeed, this is what was asked. It is aligned with Krzysztof's request. > > According to your discussion, I still should send patches in the previous > way in series. But I'm going to change it like you suggested. > I don't know, am I getting it right? 3 people tried to explain this already and we all told you the same thing. * 1 patchset per maintainer: clk and dt * bindings must be dedicated patches - never mixed with driver code. I strongly suggest that you take some time to (re)read: * https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html * https://docs.kernel.org/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.html If still unclear, please take some time to look at the kernel mailing list archive and see how others have done the same things. Thx. > >> >>>> >>>> Then when the bindings + clocks patches are merged, a pull request of the bindings >>>> can be done to me so I can merge it with DT. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> MAINTAINERS | 1 + >>>>>>> drivers/clk/meson/Kconfig | 13 + >>>>>>> drivers/clk/meson/Makefile | 1 + >>>>>>> drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.c | 875 ++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>> drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.h | 88 ++ >>>>>>> .../dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.h | 30 + >>>>>>> 7 files changed, 1059 insertions(+) >>>>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml >>>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.c >>>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.h >>>>>>> create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.h >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml >>>>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>>>> index 000000000000..fd517e8ef14f >>>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml >>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ >>>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) >>>>>>> +%YAML 1.2 >>>>>>> +--- >>>>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml# >>>>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +title: Amlogic Meson S serials PLL Clock Controller >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +maintainers: >>>>>>> + - Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> + - Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> + - Yu Tu <yu.hu@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> + >>>>>> One blank line. >>>>> >>>>> I will delete this, on next version patch. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +properties: >>>>>>> + compatible: >>>>>>> + const: amlogic,s4-pll-clkc >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + reg: >>>>>>> + maxItems: 1 >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + clocks: >>>>>>> + maxItems: 1 >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + clock-names: >>>>>>> + items: >>>>>>> + - const: xtal >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> + "#clock-cells": >>>>>>> + const: 1 >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +required: >>>>>>> + - compatible >>>>>>> + - reg >>>>>>> + - clocks >>>>>>> + - clock-names >>>>>>> + - "#clock-cells" >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +additionalProperties: false >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +examples: >>>>>>> + - | >>>>>>> + clkc_pll: clock-controller@fe008000 { >>>>>>> + compatible = "amlogic,s4-pll-clkc"; >>>>>>> + reg = <0xfe008000 0x1e8>; >>>>>>> + clocks = <&xtal>; >>>>>>> + clock-names = "xtal"; >>>>>>> + #clock-cells = <1>; >>>>>>> + }; >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> +#endif /* __MESON_S4_PLL_H__ */ >>>>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.h >>>>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>>>> index 000000000000..345f87023886 >>>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.h >>>>>> >>>>>> This belongs to bindings patch, not driver. >>>>>> >>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ >>>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */ >>>>>>> +/* >>>>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2021 Amlogic, Inc. All rights reserved. >>>>>>> + * Author: Yu Tu <yu.tu@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +#ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_CLOCK_AMLOGIC_S4_PLL_CLKC_H >>>>>>> +#define _DT_BINDINGS_CLOCK_AMLOGIC_S4_PLL_CLKC_H >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +/* >>>>>>> + * CLKID index values >>>>>>> + */ >>>>>>> + >>>>>>> +#define CLKID_FIXED_PLL 1 >>>>>>> +#define CLKID_FCLK_DIV2 3 >>>>>> >>>>>> Indexes start from 0 and are incremented by 1. Not by 2. >>>>>> >>>>>> NAK. >>>>> >>>>> I remember Jerome discussing this with you.You can look at this submission history. >>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c088e01c-0714-82be-8347-6140daf56640@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> >>>> Historically we did that by only exposing part of the numbers, controlling which >>>> clocks were part of the bindings. >>>> >>>> But it seems this doesn't make sens anymore, maybe it would be time to put all the >>>> clock ids in the bindings for this new SoC and break with the previous strategy. >> Krzysztof and I agreed there is nothing wrong with the current >> approach, I believe. >> It does not prevent someone from using an un-exposed clock, sure, or >> exposing it in the future if necessary. >> However, I think it clearly shows that an un-exposed element is not >> expected to be used by an external consumers. It should be enough to >> trigger a discussion if this expectation is wrong. >> >>> >>> So the outcome of the previous discussion was somewhere later in that >>> thread: >>> >>>> It is just a choice to not expose some IDs. >>>> It is not tied to the implementation at all. >>>> I think we actually follow the rules and the idea behind it. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Krzysztof >> .
