On 25 November 2024 23:31:58 EET, Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>On 11/18/2024 5:59 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 11:30:58AM -0800, Melody Olvera wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/15/2024 7:34 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 04:28:05PM -0800, Melody Olvera wrote:
>>>>> From: Taniya Das <quic_tdas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add support for GCC Clock Controller for SM8750 platform.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Taniya Das <quic_tdas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Melody Olvera <quic_molvera@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig | 9 +
>>>>> drivers/clk/qcom/Makefile | 1 +
>>>>> drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8750.c | 3274 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>> 3 files changed, 3284 insertions(+)
>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8750.c
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig
>>>>> index ef89d686cbc4..26bfb607235b 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig
>>>>> @@ -1130,6 +1130,15 @@ config SM_GCC_8650
>>>>> Say Y if you want to use peripheral devices such as UART,
>>>>> SPI, I2C, USB, SD/UFS, PCIe etc.
>>>>> +config SM_GCC_8750
>>>>> + tristate "SM8750 Global Clock Controller"
>>>>> + depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
>>>>> + select QCOM_GDSC
>>>>> + help
>>>>> + Support for the global clock controller on SM8750 devices.
>>>>> + Say Y if you want to use peripheral devices such as UART,
>>>>> + SPI, I2C, USB, SD/UFS, PCIe etc.
>>>>> +
>>>>> config SM_GPUCC_4450
>>>>> tristate "SM4450 Graphics Clock Controller"
>>>>> depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/Makefile b/drivers/clk/qcom/Makefile
>>>>> index b09dbdc210eb..1875018d1100 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/Makefile
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/Makefile
>>>>> @@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SM_GCC_8350) += gcc-sm8350.o
>>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_SM_GCC_8450) += gcc-sm8450.o
>>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_SM_GCC_8550) += gcc-sm8550.o
>>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_SM_GCC_8650) += gcc-sm8650.o
>>>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_SM_GCC_8750) += gcc-sm8750.o
>>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_SM_GPUCC_4450) += gpucc-sm4450.o
>>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_SM_GPUCC_6115) += gpucc-sm6115.o
>>>>> obj-$(CONFIG_SM_GPUCC_6125) += gpucc-sm6125.o
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8750.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8750.c
>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>> index 000000000000..faaefa42a039
>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-sm8750.c
>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,3274 @@
>>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2024, Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights reserved.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#include <linux/clk-provider.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/module.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>>>>> +#include <linux/regmap.h>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,sm8750-gcc.h>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +#include "clk-alpha-pll.h"
>>>>> +#include "clk-branch.h"
>>>>> +#include "clk-pll.h"
>>>>> +#include "clk-rcg.h"
>>>>> +#include "clk-regmap.h"
>>>>> +#include "clk-regmap-divider.h"
>>>>> +#include "clk-regmap-mux.h"
>>>>> +#include "clk-regmap-phy-mux.h"
>>>>> +#include "common.h"
>>>>> +#include "gdsc.h"
>>>>> +#include "reset.h"
>>>>> +
>>>>> +enum {
>>>>> + DT_BI_TCXO,
>>>>> + DT_BI_TCXO_AO,
>>>>> + DT_PCIE_0_PIPE_CLK,
>>>>> + DT_SLEEP_CLK,
>>>>> + DT_UFS_PHY_RX_SYMBOL_0_CLK,
>>>>> + DT_UFS_PHY_RX_SYMBOL_1_CLK,
>>>>> + DT_UFS_PHY_TX_SYMBOL_0_CLK,
>>>>> + DT_USB3_PHY_WRAPPER_GCC_USB30_PIPE_CLK,
>>>> This doesn't match Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8650-gcc.yaml
>>> Hmmm I see what seems to have happened here. You're correct; this doesn't
>>> match the bindings
>>> in sm8650-gcc. The v1 patchset had a new bindings file which matched the
>>> sm8650 bindings, but also
>>> didn't match the driver; however we only seemed to catch that the two
>>> bindings matched and not the
>>> fact that they didn't match the drivers.
>> I don't see v1. Please bring bindings back.
>
>Will do.
>
>>
>>> In terms of remedy I see two options. I'm fairly certain the driver here is
>>> correct, so we can either
>>> add the sm8750 bindings file back and remove the two lines about the PCIE 1
>>> clocks or adjust the
>>> sm8650 binding to encompass both sm8650 and sm8750. It's unclear to me how
>>> precedented the latter
>>> is; certainly having a single bindings file encompass both chips is
>>> feasible, but I think I'm currently
>>> leaning towards bringing back the original bindings file as that seems more
>>> precedented. Lmk
>>> your thoughts.
>> How are you thinking to change SM8650 bindings without breaking the ABI
>> / backwards compatibility?
>
>
>Giant if-then (read: poorly).
I'd say, this means a separate file.
>
>Thanks,
>Melody
