On 20/05/2024 17:23, Alexandre Mergnat wrote: > Hello Krzysztof, > > On 20/05/2024 12:12, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: >> Il 20/05/24 12:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto: >>> On 20/05/2024 11:55, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote: >>>> Il 18/05/24 23:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto: >>>>> SoCs should use dedicated compatibles for each of their syscon nodes to >>>>> precisely describe the block. Using an incorrect compatible does not >>>>> allow to properly match/validate children of the syscon device. Replace >>>>> SYSCFG compatible, which does not have children, with a new dedicated >>>>> one for SCPSYS block. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Technically, that's not a SCPSYS block, but called SYSCFG in MT8365, but the >>>> meaning and the functioning is the same, so it's fine for me. >>> >>> So there are two syscfg blocks? With exactly the same set of registers >>> or different? >>> >> >> I'm not sure about that, I don't have the MT8365 datasheet... >> >> Adding Alexandre to the loop - I think he can clarify as he should have the >> required documentation. > > Unfortunately, The SCPSYS (@10006000) isn't documented, but according to the functionnal > specification, it seems to have only one block. > > I don't have the history why SYSCFG instead of SCPSYS. > > I've tested your serie and have a regression at the kernel boot time: > [ 7.738117] mtk-power-controller 10006000.syscon:power-controller: Failed to create device link > (0x180) with 14000000.syscon > > It's related to your patch 3/4. I don't see how this could be related. The error is mentioning entirely different node - mmsys. No driver binds to 10006000.syscon, except the MFD syscon of course, so my change should have zero effect on drivers. The mtk-pm-domains (so child of patch affected in 3/4) only takes regmap from the parent, so the cells again are not related. Just to be sure: you are testing mainline or next, without any other patches on top except mine? > Best regards, Krzysztof
