On 26 February 2018 at 17:16, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 26 February 2018 at 17:05, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 4:58 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
>> <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 26 February 2018 at 11:35, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:59 AM, Ard Biesheuvel
>>>> <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 23 February 2018 at 13:12, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Ard Biesheuvel
>>>>>> <ard.biesheuvel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Replace 'baudclk' with 'pclk' and p->uartclk with i2c->clkrate in
>>>>>> above and you are almost done.
>>
>>>>> I don't think this is better.
>>>>
>>>> It's a pattern over ACPI vs. clk cases at least for now.
>>>> But hold on. We have already an example of dealing with ACPI /
>>>> non-ACPI cases for I2C controllers — i2c-designware-platdrv.c.
>>>> Check how it's done there.
>>>>
>>>> I actually totally forgot about ACPI slaves described in the table. We
>>>> need to take into account the ones with lowest bus speed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wow, that code is absolutely terrible.
>>
>> To some degree I may say yes it is.
>>
>>> So even while _DSD device properties require vendor prefixes, which
>>> are lacking in this case,
>>
>> What kind? clock-frequency? Does it require prefix?
>>
>
> What I remember from the _DSD discussions is that we should vendor
> prefixes for per-device properties, and only use unprefixed names for
> generic properties. However, looking more closely, I understand that
> this undermines the idea of having parity between DT and ACPI, because
> DT did not require vendor prefixes in the past (but it does now)
>
> I guess 'clock-frequency' is one that would not require such a vendor prefix.
>
>>> and the fact that the ACPI flavor of the
>>> Designware I2C controller now provides two different ways to get the
>>> timing parameters (using device properties or using SSCN/FMCN/etc ACPI
>>> methods), you think this is a shining example of how this should be
>>> implemented?
>>
>> No, those methods because of windows driver and existed ACPI tables at
>> that time.
>> You are not supposed to uglify your case.
>>
>
> OK, in that case, can you please spell out what you think is
> mandatory? Because handwavy references to existing UART and I2C
> drivers are not helping me here.
>
>>> Also, I still think implementing a clock device using rate X just to
>>> interrogate it for its rate (returning X) is absolutely pointless.
>>
>> OTOH the deviation in the driver is what I absolutely against of.
>> Driver must not know the resource provider (ideally at all).
>>
>
> There is no 'resource provider'. There is only a single number, which
> is the clock rate, and is only used to calculate some internal
> dividers of the I2C IP block.
>
>>> So what I can do is invent an ACPI method that returns the PCLK rate.
>>> Would that work for you?
>>
>> Again, looking into existing examples (UART, I2C, etc) we better to
>> create a generic helper in clock framework that would provide us a
>> clock based on property value.
>> But doing different paths for different resource providers is not what
>> we are looking for.
>>
>> P.S. To move this somehow forward I may propose to submit an OF
>> driver, and discuss ACPI part after.
>>
>
> Thanks, but that does not really work for me. What I can do is split
> it into an initial DT only driver, and a followup ACPI patch.
>
> Can you point me to an example of such a clock provider?
Perhaps we could agree on the binding first? Currently, I have the following
Device (I2C0) {
Name (_HID, "SCX0003")
Name (_UID, Zero)
Name (_CRS, ResourceTemplate () {
Memory32Fixed (ReadWrite, SYNQUACER_I2C1_BASE, SYNQUACER_I2C1_SIZE)
Interrupt (ResourceConsumer, Level, ActiveHigh, Exclusive) { 197 }
})
Name (_DSD, Package () // _DSD: Device-Specific Data
{
ToUUID ("daffd814-6eba-4d8c-8a91-bc9bbf4aa301"),
Package () {
Package (2) { "socionext,pclk-rate", 62500000 },
}
})
and I don't intend to add 'clock-frequency' here because it would be
redundant anyway.
Does this look sane?
