Il 15/06/23 19:40, Stephen Boyd ha scritto:
Quoting AngeloGioacchino Del Regno (2023-06-15 00:30:56)
Il 15/06/23 02:40, Stephen Boyd ha scritto:
Quoting AngeloGioacchino Del Regno (2023-06-14 01:13:43)
Il 12/06/23 21:19, Stephen Boyd ha scritto:
Quoting AngeloGioacchino Del Regno (2023-06-09 00:42:13)
Il 09/06/23 01:56, Stephen Boyd ha scritto:
Quoting AngeloGioacchino Del Regno (2023-06-08 02:01:58)
Il 08/06/23 10:12, Chen-Yu Tsai ha scritto:
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 4:57 AM Nícolas F. R. A. Prado
<nfraprado@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The firmware gives an indication of "boot done", but that's for the "core" part
of the vcodec... then it manages this clock internally to enable/disable the
"compute" IP of the decoder.
As far as I know (and I've been researching about this) the firmware will not
give any "decoder powered, clocked - ready to get data" indication, and the
only way that we have to judge whether it is in this specific state or not is
to check if the "VDEC_ACTIVE" clock got enabled by the firmware.
Is Linux ever going to use clk consumer APIs like clk_enable/clk_disable
on this VDEC_ACTIVE clk? If the answer is no, then there isn't any
reason to put it in the clk framework, and probably syscon is the way to
go for now.
Not for the current platform, but that may change in future SoCs... we're not sure.
If you're not using the clk consumer APIs then it shouldn't be a clk.
Another approach could be to wait for some amount of time after telling
firmware to power up and assume the hardware is active.
That would be highly error prone though. Expecting that the HW is alive means that
we're 100% sure that both firmware and driver are doing the right thing at every
moment, which is something that we'd like to assume but, realistically, for safety
reasons we just don't.
Should we anyway go for a syscon *now* and then change it to a clock later, if any
new platform needs this as a clock?
Yeah. Or implement this as a power domain and have it read the register
directly waiting to return from the power_on()?
A power domain would force us to incorrectly describe the hardware in the bindings
though, I think... so, Nícolas, please, let's go for a syscon at this point, as it
You don't have to add the power domain in DT, do you? You can populate a
power domain in software directly?
Right. I didn't evaluate that possibility at all. Looks good!
really looks like being the only viable option.
Stephen, many thanks for the valuable suggestions and the nice conversation.
