* H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [200421 17:31]: > > Am 21.04.2020 um 16:15 schrieb Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Note that on omaps there are actually SoC module specific registers. > > Ah, I see. This is of course a difference that the TI glue logic has > its own registers in the same address range as the sgx and this can't > be easily handled by a common sgx driver. > > This indeed seems to be unique with omap. > > > And there can be multiple devices within a single target module on > > omaps. So the extra dts node and device is justified there. > > > > For other SoCs, the SGX clocks are probably best handled directly > > in pvr-drv.c PM runtime functions unless a custom hardware wrapper > > with SoC specific registers exists. > > That is why we need to evaluate what the better strategy is. > > So we have > a) omap which has a custom wrapper around the sgx > b) others without, i.e. an empty (or pass-through) wrapper > > Which one do we make the "standard" and which one the "exception"? > What are good reasons for either one? The wrapper is already handled by the ti-sysc binding, the sgx binding should be standard with optional clocks. See for example the standard 8250 uart for am335x with: $ git grep -B20 -A10 uart0 arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx-l4.dtsi The 8250 device configuration is described in the standard 8250 dts binding, and the am335x module in the ti-sysc binding. The are separate devices :) So for the sgx binding, you can just leave out TI specific module wrapper completely from the example. > It also allows to handle different number of clocks (A31 seems to > need 4, Samsung, A83 and JZ4780 one) without changing the sgx bindings > or making big lists of conditionals. This variance would be handled > outside the sgx core bindings and driver. Well if other SoCs implement genpd domains etc, that's then again part of a separate binding and not part of the sgx binding. Regards, Tony
