On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 02:01:00PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/04/2024 13:48, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 4/10/24 13:15, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 10/04/2024 12:02, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
> >>>> Okay, so what happens if icc-clk way of generating them changes a bit?
> >>>> It can change, why not, driver implementation is not an ABI.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. These auto-generated id-numbers have to be correctly
> >>>>> tied to the DT nodes. Else, the relevant clocks may
> >>>>> not get enabled.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I don't get, how auto generated ID number is tied to DT node.
> >>>> What DT node?
> >>>
> >>> I meant the following usage for the 'interconnects' entry of the
> >>> consumer peripheral's node.
> >>>
> >>> interconnects = <&gcc MASTER_ANOC_PCIE0 &gcc SLAVE_ANOC_PCIE0>,
> >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>> <&gcc MASTER_SNOC_PCIE0 &gcc SLAVE_SNOC_PCIE0>;
> >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>>
> >>>>> Since ICC-CLK creates two ids per clock entry (one MASTER_xxx and
> >>>>> one SLAVE_xxx), using those MASTER/SLAVE_xxx macros as indices in
> >>>>> the below array would create holes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> static int icc_ipq9574_hws[] = {
> >>>>> [MASTER_ANOC_PCIE0] = GCC_ANOC_PCIE0_1LANE_M_CLK,
> >>>>> [MASTER_SNOC_PCIE0] = GCC_SNOC_PCIE0_1LANE_S_CLK,
> >>>>> [MASTER_ANOC_PCIE1] = GCC_ANOC_PCIE1_1LANE_M_CLK,
> >>>>> [MASTER_SNOC_PCIE1] = GCC_SNOC_PCIE1_1LANE_S_CLK,
> >>>>> . . .
> >>>>> };
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Other Qualcomm drivers don't have this issue and they can
> >>>>> directly use the MASTER/SLAVE_xxx macros.
> >>>>
> >>>> I understand, thanks, yet your last patch keeps adding fake IDs, means
> >>>> IDs which are not part of ABI.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As the MASTER_xxx macros cannot be used, have to define a new set
> >>>>> of macros that can be used for indices in the above array. This
> >>>>> is the reason for the ICC_BINDING_NAME macros.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then maybe fix the driver, instead of adding something which is not an
> >>>> ABI to bindings and completely skipping the actual ABI.
> >>>
> >>> Will remove the ICC_xxx defines from the header. And in the
> >>> driver will change the declaration as follows. Will that be
> >>> acceptable?
> >>>
> >>> static int icc_ipq9574_hws[] = {
> >>> [MASTER_ANOC_PCIE0 / 2] = GCC_ANOC_PCIE0_1LANE_M_CLK,
> >>
> >> What is the binding in such case? What exactly do you bind between
> >> driver and DTS?
> >
> > I think what Krzysztof is trying to say here is "the icc-clk API is tragic"
> > and the best solution would be to make it such that the interconnect indices
> > are set explicitly, instead of (master, slave), (master, slave) etc.
> >
> > Does that sound good, Krzysztof?
>
> Yes, I think earlier I expressed that icc-clk might needs fixes.
Ok
> The indices you define in the binding must be used by DTS and by the driver.
There are 3 drivers in play here.
1. The icc-clk driver
2. The gcc (i.e. the interconnect driver)
3. The consumer peripheral's driver
By 'driver' I assume, you mean the icc-clk driver.
> Directly, otherwise it is error-prone and not really an ABI...
To address this, will modify the icc-clk driver as follows.
==========================================
diff --git a/include/linux/interconnect-clk.h b/include/linux/interconnect-clk.h
index 5c611a8b0892..9bcee3e9c56c 100644
--- a/include/linux/interconnect-clk.h
+++ b/include/linux/interconnect-clk.h
@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ struct device;
struct icc_clk_data {
struct clk *clk;
const char *name;
+ unsigned int master_id;
+ unsigned int slave_id;
};
diff --git a/drivers/interconnect/icc-clk.c b/drivers/interconnect/icc-clk.c
index bce946592c98..f788db15cd76 100644
--- a/drivers/interconnect/icc-clk.c
+++ b/drivers/interconnect/icc-clk.c
@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ struct icc_provider *icc_clk_register(struct device *dev,
for (i = 0, j = 0; i < num_clocks; i++) {
qp->clocks[i].clk = data[i].clk;
- node = icc_node_create(first_id + j);
+ node = icc_node_create(first_id + data[i].master_id);
if (IS_ERR(node)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(node);
goto err;
@@ -118,10 +118,10 @@ struct icc_provider *icc_clk_register(struct device *dev,
node->data = &qp->clocks[i];
icc_node_add(node, provider);
/* link to the next node, slave */
- icc_link_create(node, first_id + j + 1);
+ icc_link_create(node, first_id + data[i].slave_id);
onecell->nodes[j++] = node;
- node = icc_node_create(first_id + j);
+ node = icc_node_create(first_id + data[i].slave_id);
if (IS_ERR(node)) {
ret = PTR_ERR(node);
goto err;
==========================================
And update the inputs going from gcc-ipq9574.c accordingly
to use the MASTER_xxx and SLAVE_xxx defines. Will this be ok?
Konrad & Krzysztof kindly let me know.
Thanks
Varada
