Hi Bjorn, On Sun, Dec 24, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri 22 Dec 20:57 PST 2017, Jassi Brar wrote: > >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:16 PM, Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > There is a clock controller functionality provided by the APCS hardware >> > block of msm8916 devices. The device-tree would represent an APCS node >> > with both mailbox and clock provider properties. >> > >> The spec might depict a 'clock' box and 'mailbox' box inside the >> bigger APCS box. However, from the code I see in this patchset, they >> are orthogonal and can & should be represented as independent DT >> nodes. > > The APCS consists of a number of different hardware blocks, one of them > being the "APCS global" block, which is what this node and drivers > relate to. On 8916 this contains both the IPC register and clock > control. But it's still just one block according to the hardware > specification. > > As such DT should describe the one hardware block by one node IMHO. > In my even humbler opinion, DT should describe a h/w functional unit which _could_ be seen as a standalone component. For example, if this APCS had a mac controller, would we also populate a netdev from mailbox driver? And what if next revision moves/drops this clock controller out of APCS, keeping mailbox controller exactly same? Maybe some DT maintainer could enlighten either of us. Cheers! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
