On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 03:16:29PM +0800, Tingwei Zhang wrote:
> On 11/15/2024 3:03 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 02:42:47PM +0800, Tingwei Zhang wrote:
> > > On 11/15/2024 2:26 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 12:59:12PM +0800, Tingwei Zhang wrote:
> > > > > On 11/14/2024 9:03 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > > > > > On 14.11.2024 1:10 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 05:54:08PM +0800, Ziyue Zhang wrote:
> > > > > > > > Add configurations in devicetree for PCIe0, including registers, clocks,
> > > > > > > > interrupts and phy setting sequence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ziyue Zhang <quic_ziyuzhan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8300-ride.dts | 44 +++++-
> > > > > > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8300.dtsi | 176 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > 2 files changed, 219 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8300-ride.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8300-ride.dts
> > > > > > > > index 7eed19a694c3..9d7c8555ed38 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8300-ride.dts
> > > > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/qcs8300-ride.dts
> > > > > > > > @@ -213,7 +213,7 @@ vreg_l9c: ldo9 {
> > > > > > > > &gcc {
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The patch doesn't seem to update the gcc node in qcs8300.dtsi. Is there
> > > > > > > any reason to have the clocks property in the board data file?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Definitely not. Ziyue, please move that change to the soc dtsi
> > > > >
> > > > > Gcc node is updated in board device tree due to sleep_clk is defined in
> > > > > board device tree. Sleep_clk is from PMIC instead SoC so we were requested
> > > > > to move sleep_clk to board device tree in previous review [1].
> > > >
> > > > Note, the review doesn't talk about sleep_clk at all. The recent
> > > > examples (sm8650, x1e80100, sa8775p) still pull the clocks into the SoC
> > > > dtsi, but without the freq.
> > > >
> > > It's begining of the discussion of the PMIC clock for SoC. Sleep clock
> > > specific discussion is here [2].
> > > [2]https://lore.kernel.org/all/be8b573c-db4e-4eec-a9a6-3cd83d04156d@xxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Please note how the recent platforms describe those clocks: the node in
> > the SoC dtsi, the frequency in the board dtsi. X1E80100 is a step
> > backwards, the clock are completely defined in the x1e80100.dtsi. There
> > seems to be no strict rule on how to handle board clocks. I've sent an
> > RFC patchset, trying to move them to a single logical location. Let's
> > see what kind of response it will get. We probably need to define and
> > follow a common rule for all Qualcomm platforms. Please give it a couple
> > of days for the dust to settle. However, I think there should be no
> > reason to keep GCC's clock definitions in the board DTS.
> >
> Thanks for the clean up patch and make it consistent.
>
> Is it reasonable for GCC's clock definition to refer xo_clk/sleep_clk in
> board device tree? Theoretically, can we have another board has different
> xo_clk say xo1_clk defined in board device tree?
That's a question for that series. I'd say, no. Some older platforms had
separate CXO and PXO clocks, newer platforms have single CXO.
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]https://lore.kernel.org/all/10914199-1e86-4a2e-aec8-2a48cc49ef14@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Konrad
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Tingwei
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > linux-phy mailing list
> > > > > linux-phy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > https://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-phy
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Tingwei
> >
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Tingwei
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
