On 26/07/2024 16:30, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:
>
>
> On 7/24/2024 1:38 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 20/07/2024 07:28, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:
>>> On SM8650, the minimum voltage corner supported on MMCX from cmd-db is
>>> sufficient for clock controllers to operate and there is no need to specify
>>> the required-opps. Hence remove the required-opps property from the list of
>>> required properties for SM8650 camcc and videocc bindings.
>>>
>>> This fixes:
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650-mtp.dtb: clock-controller@aaf0000:
>>> 'required-opps' is a required property
>>>
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650-mtp.dtb: clock-controller@ade0000:
>>> 'required-opps' is a required property
>>>
>>> Fixes: a6a61b9701d1 ("dt-bindings: clock: qcom: Add SM8650 video clock controller")
>>> Fixes: 1ae3f0578e0e ("dt-bindings: clock: qcom: Add SM8650 camera clock controller")
>>> Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202407070147.C9c3oTqS-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/
>>> Signed-off-by: Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in V2:
>>> - Made required: conditional and dropped required-opps from it only for SM8650 platform
>>> - Dropped Krzysztof Acked-by tag due to above changes
>>> - Link to V1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240708130836.19273-1-quic_jkona@xxxxxxxxxxx/#r
>>>
>>> .../bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-camcc.yaml | 26 +++++++++++++------
>>> .../bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml | 25 +++++++++++++-----
>>> 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-camcc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-camcc.yaml
>>> index f58edfc10f4c..8698c801ed11 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-camcc.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-camcc.yaml
>>> @@ -21,9 +21,6 @@ description: |
>>> include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,sm8650-camcc.h
>>> include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,x1e80100-camcc.h
>>>
>>> -allOf:
>>> - - $ref: qcom,gcc.yaml#
>>> -
>>> properties:
>>> compatible:
>>> enum:
>>> @@ -53,11 +50,24 @@ properties:
>>> reg:
>>> maxItems: 1
>>>
>>> -required:
>>
>> You cannot remove required block.
>>
>>> - - compatible
>>> - - clocks
>>> - - power-domains
>>> - - required-opps
>>> +allOf:
>>> + - $ref: qcom,gcc.yaml#
>>> + - if:
>>> + properties:
>>> + compatible:
>>> + contains:
>>> + const: qcom,sm8650-camcc
>>> + then:
>>> + required:
>>> + - compatible
>>> + - clocks
>>> + - power-domains
>>> + else:
>>> + required:
>>> + - compatible
>>> + - clocks
>>> + - power-domains
>>> + - required-opps
>>>
>>> unevaluatedProperties: false
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml
>>> index b2792b4bb554..2e5a061f33d6 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml
>>> @@ -40,15 +40,26 @@ properties:
>>> description:
>>> A phandle to an OPP node describing required MMCX performance point.
>>>
>>> -required:
>>
>> No, you cannot remove required block.
>>
>> To clarify: there is almost no single binding using your style. Even if
>> there is one, then 99 others are using it differently. Do not implement
>> things entirely different than everyone else. This is the same for C
>> code you send upstream. No difference here...
>>
>
> Thanks Krzysztof for the explanation.
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> As we discussed during SM8650 camcc and videocc changes, the MMCX rail's
> minimum voltage level from cmd-db is adequate for these clock
> controllers to operate on SM8650. So, we removed the 'required-opps'
> property from their DT nodes.
Not sure with whom you discuss. With Dmitry or me. Anyway, I said
nothing about required-opps, but the "required:" block.
>
> Although 'required-opps' will remain in the properties list, it’s not
> mandatory to be present in 'required:' list, as it is dependent on
> cmd-db minimum level. So, can I please go ahead and update these
> bindings to remove 'required-opps' from the 'required:' list, as done in
> v1 of this series.
>
> It seems unconventional to make 'required:' conditional based on the
> platform type.
>
Obviously. But nothing stops you - and there are plenty of examples - of
requiring one particular property based on the variant.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
