On 22-06-30 20:01:31, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 30/06/2022 10:36, Viorel Suman wrote:
> > On 22-06-29 20:04:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 29/06/2022 18:44, Viorel Suman (OSS) wrote:
> >>> From: Viorel Suman <viorel.suman@xxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> "clocks" and "clock-names" are not used the driver, so
> >>> remove them in order to match the yaml definition.
> >>
> >> So this explains the unexpected change in the bindings... but actually
> >> it does not explain whether it is correct or not. Just because driver
> >> does not use it, is not a proof that clocks are not there. In different
> >> OS/implementation this DTS might break stuff, so basically it is ABI
> >> break. DTS should describe the hardware fully, so if the clocks are
> >> there, should be in DTS regardless of the driver.
> >
> > Hi Krzysztof,
> >
> > Both XTAL clocks - 24MHz and 32kHz - are still defined in DTSI files, see for instance in
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/freescale/imx8qxp.dtsi :
> > ---------------
> > xtal32k: clock-xtal32k {
> > compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > #clock-cells = <0>;
> > clock-frequency = <32768>;
> > clock-output-names = "xtal_32KHz";
> > };
> >
> > xtal24m: clock-xtal24m {
> > compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > #clock-cells = <0>;
> > clock-frequency = <24000000>;
> > clock-output-names = "xtal_24MHz";
> > };
> > ---------------
> > Both can be seen in /sys/kernel/debug/clk/clk_summary once boot is complete, both can be referenced
> > in any DTS node, so there is no ABI break.
>
> ABI break is not relevant to the fixed clocks being or not being defined
> in the DTS. You have a device which was taking the clock inputs, so the
> clocks stayed enabled.
>
> Now, you don't take these inputs, so for example the clocks are getting
> disabled as not used.
Ok, thanks for the explanation.
> >
> > "DTS should describe the hardware fully" - this is true in case the OS is supposed to controll the
> > hardware fully. i.MX8 System Controller Unit concept implies resources being allocated and managed
> > by SCU, there is no direct OS access to some hardware. SCU actually defines the hardware environment
> > the OS is being able to see and run within. SCU is able to define several such isolated hardware
> > environments, each having its own OS running. So, in this particular case - i.MX8 SCU concept -
> > DTS should describe the hardware from the perspective of the hardware environment exposed by SCU to
> > OS.
>
> OK, that sounds good, but the question about these clocks remain - are
> they inputs to the SCU or not.
The question context looks a bit shifted. The "clocks" and "clock-names"
attributes are removed from a clock provider device.
The OS clock provider in this case is a client which uses some protocol
to communicate with SCU via a messaging unit. There is no
access to xtal clocks via the existing OS<->SCU communication protocol.
>
> Regardless whether they are actual input or not, you used not
> appropriate argument here - that Linux OS implementation does not use
> them. The proper argument is - whether the hardware environment has them
> connected or not.
Right, agreed.
Regards,
Viorel
