Hi Paul & Paul, > Am 03.05.2020 um 18:41 schrieb H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Hi Paul and Paul, > >> Am 03.05.2020 um 16:18 schrieb Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> >> >> Le dim. 3 mai 2020 à 15:31, H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : >>> Hi Paul, >>>> Am 03.05.2020 um 14:52 schrieb Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>>>> It's possible to forbid the presence of the 'clocks' property on some implementations, and require it on others. >>>>> To be precise we have to specify the exact number of clocks (between 0 and 4) for every architecture. >>>>> This also contradicts my dream to get rid of the architecture specific components in the long run. My dream (because I can't tell how it can be done) is that we can one day develop something which just needs compatible = img,530 or imp,540 or img,544. Then we can't make the number clocks depend on the implementation any more. >>>> As we said before, the number of clocks is a property of the GPU and *not* its integration into the SoC. >>> Well, it is a not very well documented property of the GPU. We have no data sheet of the standalone GPU. Only several SoC data sheets which give some indications. >> >> Maybe we can nicely ask them? > > There is some (old) answer here: > > https://github.com/MIPS/CI20_linux/blob/ci20-v3.18/arch/mips/boot/dts/jz4780.dtsi#L63 > >> I expect Paul Burton to have some contacts at ImgTec. Asking for a doc would be too much, but maybe they can help a bit with the DT bindings. > > Good idea! It is definitively worth to try. Therefore I have moved him from CC: to To: Do we already have an idea if we can get into contact and get help from ImgTec for this topic or if we have to live with what we have? BR and thanks, Nikolaus
