On 2023-06-29 21:14:47, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 29.06.2023 14:26, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 15:09, Marijn Suijten
> > <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2023-06-29 13:55:28, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> On 27/06/2023 23:14, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> >>>> We have a working RPM XO clock; no other driver except rpmcc should be
> >>>> parenting directly to the fixed-factor xo_board clock nor should it be
> >>>> reachable by that global name. Remove the name to that effect, so that
> >>>> every clock relation is explicitly defined in DTS.
> >>>>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi | 7 ++++---
> >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> >>>> index 722dde560bec..edb03508dba3 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> >>>> @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ xo_board: xo-board {
> >>>> compatible = "fixed-clock";
> >>>> #clock-cells = <0>;
> >>>> clock-frequency = <19200000>;
> >>>> - clock-output-names = "xo_board";
> >>>
> >>> Why? I'd say, leave it.
> >>
> >> The exact reason is explained in the commit message.
> >
> > Usually we do no not kill the xo_board name for the sake of anybody
> > still looking for the old name. Weak argument, I know.
> The only users are (rg -l '"xo_board"' drivers):
>
> drivers/clk/qcom/mmcc-msm8974.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/a53-pll.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8974.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/clk-smd-rpm.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/mmcc-msm8996.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8916.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-apq8084.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8996.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/mmcc-apq8084.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/hdmi/hdmi_phy_8996.c
>
> This platform only binds clk-smd-rpm, but patch 11 provides a
> direct reference in the DT.
And following a quick check, those occurrences all have
.fw_name="xo",.name="xo_board", allowing the clock to be provided via
DT. For sm6125, I'd like it to be required like that: all dt-bindings
require an "xo" board where relevant, after all.
- Marijn
>
> Konrad
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> With that fixed:
> >>
> >> Hence I don't think it makes sense to "fix" this.
> >>
> >> - Marijn
> >>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> >
