On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 11:25:57PM +0200, Ghennadi Procopciuc wrote:
> On 1/19/24 18:14, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 04:11:37PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 03:02:28PM +0200, Ghennadi Procopciuc (OSS) wrote:
> >>> From: Ghennadi Procopciuc <ghennadi.procopciuc@xxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> Add the SCMI clock IDs for the uSDHC controller present on
> >>> S32G SoCs.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ciprian Costea <ciprianmarian.costea@xxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ghennadi Procopciuc <ghennadi.procopciuc@xxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/dt-bindings/clock/s32g-scmi-clock.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> >>> create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/clock/s32g-scmi-clock.h
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/s32g-scmi-clock.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/s32g-scmi-clock.h
> >>> new file mode 100644
> >>> index 000000000000..739f98a924c3
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/s32g-scmi-clock.h
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
> >>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-3-Clause) */
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * Copyright 2020-2024 NXP
> >>> + */
> >>> +#ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_SCMI_CLK_S32G_H
> >>> +#define _DT_BINDINGS_SCMI_CLK_S32G_H
> >>> +
> >>> +/* uSDHC */
> >>> +#define S32G_SCMI_CLK_USDHC_AHB 31
> >>> +#define S32G_SCMI_CLK_USDHC_MODULE 32
> >>> +#define S32G_SCMI_CLK_USDHC_CORE 33
> >>> +#define S32G_SCMI_CLK_USDHC_MOD32K 34
> >>
> >> Why do these numbers not start at 0?
> >
> > Ah, because these are the SCMI IDs directly. If these are numbers that
> > are in the TRM, just use the numbers directly - there's no need to
> > create bindings for that.
> >
>
> Hi Conor,
>
> I appreciate you taking the time to review the proposed changes. I
> wanted to clarify that the IDs mentioned in the header are SCMI IDs
> exported by the TF-A and are utilized by the second patch of this
> series. These IDs are for the uSDHC controller to control its clocks. As
> other SoCs use this model, I have included all the necessary IDs in a
> dedicated header file:
> - rk3588s (arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s.dtsi:97 [0])
> - stm32mp157c (arch/arm/boot/dts/st/stm32mp157c-ed1-scmi.dts:73 [1])
> - stm32mp131 (arch/arm/boot/dts/st/stm32mp131.dtsi:1372 [2])
>
> Should I remove the header and use raw numbers in the uSDHC node?
IMO, yes. There's no abstraction/binding being created here if they're
the SCMI IDs.
Thanks,
conor.
> For
> example:
> > + usdhc0: mmc@402f0000 {
> > + compatible = "nxp,s32g2-usdhc";
> > + reg = <0x402f0000 0x1000>;
> > + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 36 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > + clocks = <&clks 32>,
> > + <&clks 31>,
> > + <&clks 33>;
> > + clock-names = "ipg", "ahb", "per";
> > + bus-width = <8>;
> > + status = "disabled";
> > + };
>
> [0]
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588s.dtsi#n97
> [1]
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm/boot/dts/st/stm32mp157c-ed1-scmi.dts#n73
> [2]
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm/boot/dts/st/stm32mp131.dtsi#n1372
>
> --
> Regards,
> Ghennadi
>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
