On 20/02/2024 18:29, Yang Xiwen wrote: > On 2/21/2024 1:06 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 20/02/2024 17:31, Yang Xiwen wrote: >>> On 2/21/2024 12:25 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 20/02/2024 17:19, Yang Xiwen wrote: >>>>> On 2/21/2024 12:13 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> On 20/02/2024 15:06, Yang Xiwen wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/20/2024 6:10 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>>>> On 17/02/2024 13:52, Yang Xiwen via B4 Relay wrote: >>>>>>>>> From: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> According to the datasheet, some clocks are missing, add their >>>>>>>>> definitions first. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some aliases for hi3798mv200 are also introduced. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h >>>>>>>>> index e64e5770ada6..68a53053586a 100644 >>>>>>>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h >>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/histb-clock.h >>>>>>>>> @@ -58,6 +58,27 @@ >>>>>>>>> #define HISTB_USB3_UTMI_CLK1 48 >>>>>>>>> #define HISTB_USB3_PIPE_CLK1 49 >>>>>>>>> #define HISTB_USB3_SUSPEND_CLK1 50 >>>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_BIU_CLK 51 >>>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_CIU_CLK 52 >>>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_DRV_CLK 53 >>>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_SDIO1_SAMPLE_CLK 54 >>>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_ETH0_PHY_CLK 55 >>>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_ETH1_PHY_CLK 56 >>>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_WDG0_CLK 57 >>>>>>>>> +#define HISTB_USB2_UTMI0_CLK HISTB_USB2_UTMI_CLK >>>>>>>> Why? It's anyway placed oddly, the entries are ordered by number/value. >>>>>>> So this is somewhat broken at the beginning. It named after >>>>>>> histb-clock.h but actually they are all clocks for Hi3798CV200 SoC. For >>>>>>> Hi3798MV200(also a HiSTB SoC), there is one additional UTMI clock. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What solution do you prefer? rename UTMI_CLK to UTMI0_CLK, add UTMI1_CLK >>>>>>> after it and increment all the indexes after it? Then the diff would be >>>>>>> very ugly. >>>>>> I still don't understand what is the problem you are trying to solve >>>>>> here. Your commit msg says add missing ID, but that ID - >>>>>> HISTB_USB2_UTMI_CLK - is already there. >>>>>> >>>>>> I also do not get why there is a need to rename anything. >>>>> Because there are two USB2_UTMI_CLKs in total, at least for Hi3798MV200. >>>>> UTMI1 is missing here. For other HiSTB SoCs, there could be even more. >>>> My comment was under UTMI0. We do not talk about UTMI1... >>>> >>>>> If we add USB2_UTMI1_CLK, it looks silly to keep USB2_UTMI_CLK without >>>>> renaming it to UTMI0. Just like all the other clocks. E.g. >>>>> I2Cn_CLK(n=0,1,2,3,4) etc.., so the same for USB2_UTMI_CLK. >>>> Then place it next to old name and explain why it is deprecated with >>>> comment. >>> >>> Do we need to keep the old name? I can fix all the users (only >>> hi3798cv200.dtsi) in next version and drop this name directly. Is that >> All users in all projects? That might be tricky. And even for Linux >> kernel, how can you do it in a bisectable way? Just keep old name. >> >> >>> okay? Should i insert UTMI1_CLK to the middle and re-index all the >>> macros after it? Or simply add it to the tail? >> Bindings and header constants are ABI, so you cannot change them. > > > This file should be renamed to hi3798cv200-clock.h, it shouldn't be > called histb-clock.h from the beginning. Now I have to workaround this > in a dirty way. What if another HiSTB SoC has 3 or more UTMI_CLKs? Do we > need to add more definitions to the end of the file? The file is gonna That's not a big problem, but indeed shows poor design of the driver and bindings. > to be more and more unreadable with scattered clock definitions. > > > Do you think it's acceptable to create a new header file instead? I This depends on the purpose of it. In general every SoC follows that concept - binding headers are per given clock controller, not even per SoC. > think we don't need a generic histb-clock.h. Each SoC should maintain > their own clock indexes header file. Maybe we can rename it to > hi3798cv200-clock.h and include it from a new histb-clock.h (also mark > this generic header file deprecated and only for hi3798cv200). Then I'll > create hi3798mv200-clock.h header file instead. So we don't have to > workaround this. Best regards, Krzysztof
