On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 5:35 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
<dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 at 13:20, Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 02:08:27PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > > On 21/04/2022 13:20, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > > Some QMP PHYs need to remux to their pipe clock input to the pipe clock
> > > > output generated by the PHY before powering on the PHY and restore the
> > > > default source during power down.
> > > >
> > > > Add support for an optional pipe clock mux which will be reparented to
> > > > the generated pipe clock before powering on the PHY and restored to the
> > > > default reference source on power off.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + qphy->piperef_clk = of_clk_get_by_name(np, "ref");
> > > > + if (IS_ERR(qphy->piperef_clk)) {
> > > > + ret = PTR_ERR(qphy->piperef_clk);
> > > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret,
> > > > + "failed to get lane%d piperef_clk\n",
> > > > + id);
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > >
> > > As a second thought.
> > > This needs to be more explicit. If the chipset requires the pipe clock
> > > remuxing, we must fail if the clocks were not provided. So depending on
> > > the qmp instance/property the driver should either use devm_clk_get()
> > > (instead of _optional) or skip this block completely.
> >
> > No, the kernel is not a DT validator (and we have the YAML bindings for
> > that now).
>
> It is not about DT validation. It is about passing a correct DT. The
> file can come up from the kernel. It can come from the older kernel.
> OR it can come from the vendor. Or it even might be being a part of
> firmware flashed into the device.
As of dtschema 2022.03, validation of dtb's from firmware (or anywhere
else) is supported. Of course, as the old saying goes, if it's not
upstream, it doesn't exist. We can't control what vendors do in their
DTs.
> So we can not assume that the DT is correct just because the in-kernel
> DT passes YAML validation.
I agree with Johan on this. In terms of ensuring correctness, the
kernel does a horrible job. It never will be as long as it is done in
ad hoc code.
> So, as I wrote, the whole patchset needs much more care about compatibility.
>
> > > But this will not work with earlier DTS files.
> >
> > So this is not a problem (but if we really wanted to have the driver
> > validate the DT it can be done by updating the compatible strings).
>
> We should not update compatible strings just because the driver
> changes. Compat strings describe the hardware, not the Linux point of
> view on it.
Yes and no. It is the OS/client view of the h/w. If a binding is
deemed horribly broken we could do a new compatible string and
binding. That's not something we want to be doing frequently though.
Rob
