On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 4:59 AM Cristian Ciocaltea
<cristian.ciocaltea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 3/17/23 00:26, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 03:34:17PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> +Stephen
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 01:47:56PM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> >>> Since commit df4fdd0db475 ("dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict
> >>> protocol child node properties") the following dtbs_check warning is
> >>> shown:
> >>>
> >>> rk3588-rock-5b.dtb: scmi: protocol@14: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('assigned-clock-rates', 'assigned-clocks' were unexpected)
> >>
> >> I think that's a somewhat questionable use of assigned-clock-rates. It
> >> should be located with the consumer rather than the provider IMO. The
> >> consumers of those 2 clocks are the CPU nodes.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed. We definitely don't use those in the scmi clk provider driver.
> > So NACK for the generic SCMI binding change.
>
> According to [1], "configuration of common clocks, which affect multiple
> consumer devices can be similarly specified in the clock provider node".
True, but in this case it's really a single consumer because it's all
CPU nodes which are managed together.
> That would avoid duplicating assigned-clock-rates in the CPU nodes.
Wouldn't one node be sufficient?
Thinking more about this, why aren't you using OPP tables to define
CPU frequencies. Assigned-clocks looks like a temporary hack because
you haven't done proper OPP tables.
Rob
