Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] clk: qcom: rpmh: Add support for SM8750 rpmh clocks

[Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/15/2024 7:31 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 04:28:02PM -0800, Melody Olvera wrote:
> > From: Taniya Das <quic_tdas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Add the RPMH clocks present in SM8750 SoC and fix the match table to
> > sort it alphabetically.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Taniya Das <quic_tdas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >   1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> > index eefc322ce367..a3b381e34e48 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> > @@ -368,6 +368,10 @@ DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk2, _d, "rfclkd2", 1);
> >   DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk3, _d, "rfclkd3", 1);
> >   DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk4, _d, "rfclkd4", 1);
> >   
> > +DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk3, _a2, "rfclka3", 2);
> > +DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk4, _a2, "rfclka4", 2);
> > +DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(rf_clk5, _a2, "rfclka5", 2);
> Are the two last clocks defined "for the future platforms"?

I'm unsure; I'll let Taniya comment.

> > +
> >   DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(clk1, _a1, "clka1", 1);
> >   DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(clk2, _a1, "clka2", 1);
> >   DEFINE_CLK_RPMH_VRM(clk3, _a1, "clka3", 1);
> > @@ -807,6 +811,27 @@ static const struct clk_rpmh_desc clk_rpmh_x1e80100 = {
> >   	.num_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(x1e80100_rpmh_clocks),
> >   };
> >   
> > +static struct clk_hw *sm8750_rpmh_clocks[] = {
> > +	[RPMH_CXO_CLK]		= &clk_rpmh_bi_tcxo_div2.hw,
> > +	[RPMH_CXO_CLK_A]	= &clk_rpmh_bi_tcxo_div2_ao.hw,
> > +	[RPMH_LN_BB_CLK1]	= &clk_rpmh_clk6_a2.hw,
> > +	[RPMH_LN_BB_CLK1_A]	= &clk_rpmh_clk6_a2_ao.hw,
> > +	[RPMH_LN_BB_CLK3]	= &clk_rpmh_clk8_a2.hw,
> > +	[RPMH_LN_BB_CLK3_A]	= &clk_rpmh_clk8_a2_ao.hw,
> > +	[RPMH_RF_CLK1]		= &clk_rpmh_rf_clk1_a.hw,
> > +	[RPMH_RF_CLK1_A]	= &clk_rpmh_rf_clk1_a_ao.hw,
> > +	[RPMH_RF_CLK2]		= &clk_rpmh_rf_clk2_a.hw,
> > +	[RPMH_RF_CLK2_A]	= &clk_rpmh_rf_clk2_a_ao.hw,
> > +	[RPMH_RF_CLK3]		= &clk_rpmh_rf_clk3_a2.hw,
> > +	[RPMH_RF_CLK3_A]	= &clk_rpmh_rf_clk3_a2_ao.hw,
> > +	[RPMH_IPA_CLK]		= &clk_rpmh_ipa.hw,
> > +};
> > +
> > +static const struct clk_rpmh_desc clk_rpmh_sm8750 = {
> > +	.clks = sm8750_rpmh_clocks,
> > +	.num_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(sm8750_rpmh_clocks),
> > +};
> > +
> >   static struct clk_hw *of_clk_rpmh_hw_get(struct of_phandle_args *clkspec,
> >   					 void *data)
> >   {
> > @@ -894,6 +919,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id clk_rpmh_match_table[] = {
> >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,sa8775p-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sa8775p},
> >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,sar2130p-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sar2130p},
> >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,sc7180-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sc7180},
> > +	{ .compatible = "qcom,sc7280-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sc7280},
> >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,sc8180x-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sc8180x},
> >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,sc8280xp-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sc8280xp},
> >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sdm845},
> > @@ -909,7 +935,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id clk_rpmh_match_table[] = {
> >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8450-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sm8450},
> >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8550-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sm8550},
> >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8650-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sm8650},
> > -	{ .compatible = "qcom,sc7280-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sc7280},
> Please don't mix fixes and actual code. I'd suggest splitting sc7280
> move to the separate commit.

Bryan O'Donoghue requested we sort these as part of this patch. I don't 
feel strongly either way,
but clear guidance here would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Melody

> > +	{ .compatible = "qcom,sm8750-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_sm8750},
> >   	{ .compatible = "qcom,x1e80100-rpmh-clk", .data = &clk_rpmh_x1e80100},
> >   	{ }
> >   };
> > --
> > 2.46.1