On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 08:56:13PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 6:45 PM Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This is a follow-up to the ipq806x gcc modernize series. Manu cleanup > > changes and also some discoveries of wrong definition notice only with > > all these conversions. > > > > The first patch is an improvement of the clk_hw_get_parent_index. The > > original idea of clk_hw_get_parent_index was to give a way to access the > > parent index but for some reason the final version limited it to the > > current index. We change it to give the current parent if is not > > provided and to give the requested parent if provided. Any user of this > > function is updated to follow the new implementation. > > > > The patch 2 and 3 are some additional fixes for gcc. > > The first one is a fix that register the pxo and cxo fixed clock only if > > they are not defined in DTS. > > The patch 3 require some explaination. In short is a big HACK to prevent > > kernel panic with this series. > > > > The kpss-xcc driver is a mess. > > The Documentation declare that the clocks should be provided but for some > > reason it was never followed. > > In fact in the ipq8064 DTSI only the clocks for l2cc are declared but > > for cpu0 and cpu1 the clocks are not defined. > > The kpss-xcc driver use parent_names so the clks are ignored and never > > used so till now it wasn't a problem (ignoring the fact that they > > doesn't follow documentation at all) > > On top of that, the l2cc node declare the pxo clock in a really strange > > way. It's declared using the PXO_SRC gcc clock that is never defined in > > the gcc ipq8064 clock table. (the correct way was to declare a fixed > > clock in dts and reference that) > > To prevent any kind of problem we use the patch 3 and provide the clk > > for PXO_SRC in the gcc clock table. We manually provide the clk after > > gcc probe. > > > > Patch 4 is just a minor cleanup where we use the poll macro > > > > Patch 5 is the actually kpss-xcc conversion to parent data > > > > Patch 6-7 should be a fixup of a real conver case > > > > Patch 8 converts the krait-cc to parent_data > > Patch 9 give some love to the code with some minor fixup > > Patch 10 drop the hardcoded safe sel and use the new > > clk_hw_get_parent_index to get the safe parent index. > > (also I discovered that the parent order was wrong) > > > > Patch 11 is an additional fixup to force the reset of the muxes even > > more. > > > > Patch 12-13 are some additiona taken from the qsdk that were missing in > > the upstream driver > > > > Patch 14 converts krait-cc to yaml > > > > Patch 15 add to krait-cc Documentation the L2 clocks > > > > Patch 16 converts the kpss-acc driver to yaml and fix some Documentation > > error > > > > Patch 17 convets the kpss-gcc driver to yaml > > > > Patch 18 finally adds all this stuff to the ipq8064 dtsi (and fix the > > stupid PXO_SRC phandle) > > > > I tested this series on a ipq8064 SoC by running a cache benchmark test > > to make sure the changes are correct and we don't silently cause > > regressions. Also I compared the output of the clk_summary every time > > and we finally have a sane output where the mux are correctly placed in > > the correct parent. (till now we had the cpu aux clock all over the > > place, probably never cause problems but who knows.) > > > > v6: > > - Move dts patch as last patch > > - Address commencts from Rob > > - Fix warning from make dtbs_check > > v5: > > - Address comments from Krzysztof > > v4: > > - Fix more dt-bindings bog errors > > v3: > > - Split Documentation files for kpss and krait-cc > > v2: > > - introduce new API instead of fixing the existing one > > - do not reorganize variables in krait-cc > > - fix some comments error and improve it > > - return better error for patch 7 > > - fix missing new line on patch 16 > > 6 versions in a week is too many, especially with the merge window > starting. Please give some time for review of all the patches and by > more than one person. It doesn't look like any of the clk driver > patches have been reviewed since v1 for example. > > Rob Yes sorry. There was an initial review for the clk driver from v1 to v2 but nothing else. I was trying to make the Documentation ready while I wait for a second review of the clk code. Will wait for clk code review to send v7 hoping it will be the final version. -- Ansuel
