On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 03:28:13PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2024-10-17 15:00:03)
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 11:10:20AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2024-10-17 09:56:57)
> > > > From: Kalpak Kawadkar <quic_kkawadka@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Add support for SREG branch ops. This is for the clocks which require
> > >
> > > What is SREG? Can you spell it out?
> >
> > Unfortunately, no idea. This is the only register name I know.
> >
>
> Can someone inside qcom tell us?
Taniya, could you possibly help us? This is for gcc_video_axi0_sreg /
gcc_video_axi1_sreg / gcc_iris_ss_hf_axi1_sreg /
gcc_iris_ss_spd_axi1_sreg clocks on the SAR2130P platform.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > u8 halt_check;
> > >
> > > Instead of adding these new members can you wrap the struct in another
> > > struct? There are usually a lot of branches in the system and this
> > > bloats those structures when the members are never used.
> > >
> > > struct clk_sreg_branch {
> > > u32 sreg_enable_reg;
> > > u32 sreg_core_ack_bit;
> > > u32 sreg_periph_ack_bit;
> > > struct clk_branch branch;
> > > };
> > >
> > > But I'm not even sure that is needed vs. just putting a clk_regmap
> > > inside because the clk_ops don't seem to use any of these other members?
> >
> > Yes, nice idea. Is it ok to keep the _branch suffix or we'd better
> > rename it dropping the _branch (and move to another source file while we
> > are at it)?
> >
>
> I don't really care. Inside qcom they called things branches in the
> hardware and that name was carried into the code. If sreg is a branch
> then that would make sense. From the 'core_ack' and 'periph_ack' it
> actually looks like some sort of power switch masquerading as a clk.
Ack.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
