On 27.01.2023 14:11, Luca Weiss wrote: > On Fri Jan 27, 2023 at 1:49 PM CET, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >> On 27/01/2023 12:45, Luca Weiss wrote: >>> Can I reference <&camcc TITAN_TOP_GDSC> from itself? I know that having >>> it on is required to turn on at least some clocks (maybe all clocks). >>> But from what I understand how power domains are normally handled, the >>> driver core enables them before the driver is probed, so self >>> referencing wouldn't work. >>> >>> And at least no other SoC upstream references TITAN_TOP_GDSC in camcc. >>> >>> Regards >>> Luca >> >> Doh I meant to say a power-domain to an mmcx a la >> >> power-domains = <&rpmhpd SM8250_MMCX>; >> required-opps = <&rpmhpd_opp_low_svs>; >> >> TITAN_TOP should be in your cci and camss dt nodes. > > Okay, that makes more sense. > > What I don't quite understand is why sm8250 only has MMCX listed there > since downstream has both vdd_mx-supply = <&VDD_MX_LEVEL> and > vdd_mm-supply = <&VDD_MMCX_LEVEL> and both "supplies" are used for > different clocks using .vdd_class > > But back to sm6350, downstream has vdd_mx-supply = <&VDD_MX_LEVEL> and > vdd_cx-supply = <&VDD_CX_LEVEL> and like sm8250 uses cx and mx for > different clocks. > Not sure if I should add both, and I guess mainline also currently > doesn't use higher ops for the power domain when higher clock rate is > needed, from what I understand? Basically if you don't need to power any of these power rails to have access to the clock controller, you don't need any of them. What you will need to do however, is make sure that they are scaled with child devices then.. but that's no bueno since they all need TITAN_GDSC. That's why Bryan suggests leaving a vote on a power rail in the clock controller, so that if no other votes are present (as improbable as that may be), you will still be able to get the clocks going. That OTOH will require you to add power management support (PM ops) to the clock controller, as otherwise you can say goodbye to battery life.. Konrad > >> >> --- >> bod >
