On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 03:06:29PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 2:52 PM Tomasz Figa <tfiga@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 6:13 PM Vivek Gautam
> > <vivek.gautam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 11:09 PM Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 04:54:30PM +0530, Vivek Gautam wrote:
> > > > > @@ -2026,6 +2027,17 @@ ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(arm_mmu401, ARM_SMMU_V1_64K, GENERIC_SMMU);
> > > > > ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(arm_mmu500, ARM_SMMU_V2, ARM_MMU500);
> > > > > ARM_SMMU_MATCH_DATA(cavium_smmuv2, ARM_SMMU_V2, CAVIUM_SMMUV2);
> > > > >
> > > > > +static const char * const qcom_smmuv2_clks[] = {
> > > > > + "bus", "iface",
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static const struct arm_smmu_match_data qcom_smmuv2 = {
> > > > > + .version = ARM_SMMU_V2,
> > > > > + .model = QCOM_SMMUV2,
> > > > > + .clks = qcom_smmuv2_clks,
> > > > > + .num_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(qcom_smmuv2_clks),
> > > > > +};
> > > >
> > > > These seems redundant if we go down the route proposed by Thor, where we
> > > > just pull all of the clocks out of the device-tree. In which case, why
> > > > do we need this match_data at all?
> > >
> > > Which is better? Driver relying solely on the device tree to tell
> > > which all clocks
> > > are required to be enabled,
> > > or, the driver deciding itself based on the platform's match data,
> > > that it should
> > > have X, Y, & Z clocks that should be supplied from the device tree.
> >
> > The former would simplify the driver, but would also make it
> > impossible to spot mistakes in DT, which would ultimately surface out
> > as very hard to debug bugs (likely complete system lockups).
>
> Thanks.
> Yea, this is how I understand things presently. Relying on device tree
> puts the things out of driver's control.
But it also has the undesirable effect of having to update the driver
code whenever we want to add support for a new SMMU implementation. If
we do this all in the DT, as Thor is trying to do, then older kernels
will work well with new hardware.
> Hi Will,
> Am I unable to understand the intentions here for Thor's clock-fetch
> design change?
I'm having trouble parsing your question, sorry. Please work with Thor
so that we have a single way to get the clock information. My preference
is to take it from the firmware, for the reason I stated above.
Will
