Hi Prabhakar,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 07 January 2025 12:44
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] clk: renesas: rzv2h: Switch MSTOP configuration to per-bit basis
>
> Hi Biju,
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 12:38 PM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Prabhakar,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: 07 January 2025 12:31
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] clk: renesas: rzv2h: Switch MSTOP
> > > configuration to per-bit basis
> > >
> > > Hi Biju,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 12:25 PM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Prabhakar,
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Sent: 07 January 2025 11:46
> > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/6] clk: renesas: rzv2h: Switch MSTOP
> > > > > configuration to per-bit basis
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Biju,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 11:24 AM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Prabhakar,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the patch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > Sent: 02 January 2025 18:19
> > > > > > > Subject: [PATCH v3 4/6] clk: renesas: rzv2h: Switch MSTOP
> > > > > > > configuration to per-bit basis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Lad Prabhakar
> > > > > > > <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Switch MSTOP handling from group-based to per-bit
> > > > > > > configuration to address issues with shared dependencies
> > > > > > > between module clocks. In the current group-based
> > > > > > > configuration, multiple module clocks may rely on a single
> > > > > > > MSTOP bit. When both clocks are turned ON and one is
> > > > > > > subsequently turned OFF, the shared MSTOP bit will still be
> > > > > > > set, which is incorrect since the
> > > > > other dependent module clock remains ON.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I guess this statement is incorrect. Still in group-based,
> > > > > > mstop bit is controlled by usage
> > > > > count(ref_cnt).
> > > > > >
> > > > > It is valid, consider an example say IP-A reuiqres MSTOP bits 8
> > > > > | 9
> > > > > |
> > > > > 10 and consider IP-B requires MSTOP bits 10 | 11 | 12 (of the
> > > > > same MSTOP register say MSTOP1). Now this will be seperate
> > > > > groups having separate count(ref_cnt). Say you turn ON IP-A
> > > > > module clock and correspondingly clear the MSTOP bits and
> > > > > similarly now lets turn ON module clocks for IP-B and clear the
> > > > > MSTOP bits. Now let's say you want to turn OFF IP-A so you turn
> > > > > OFF module clock and set the MSTOP bits 8 | 9 | 10. In this case
> > > you will now see issues with IP-B as MSTOP BIT(10) has been set when
> > > we turned OFF IP-A block. This case is handled by switching refcount on per mstop bit by this
> patch.
> > > >
> > > > I agree, Do we have such use case?
> > > >
> > > Yes, for USB2.0 on RZ/V2H.
> >
> > OK, then it make sense for per-bit configuration.
> >
> > >
> > > > Consider another use case, index 0, bit 8| index 0, bit9| index0,
> > > > bit10 and index 0, bit8 | index1,
> > > bit 0 | index1 10 is addressed in current patch series?
> > > >
> > > Can you please elaborate, the above isn't clear to me.
> >
> >
> > I just provide a random example for a future IP, where
> >
> > IP_A requires mstop1 {8,9,10}
> > And
> > IP_B requires mstop1 {8} and mstop2 {9, 10}
> >
> No, this case is not handled by the patch series.
>
> > Note: I haven't seen this scenario in hardware manual.
> >
> Yes, neither do I. For this case we will have to re-work the
> BUS_MSTOP() macro. Let me know if we want this case to be handled.
> I'll create a new patch on top of this series.
I guess we can address this later when a real use case like USB2.0 arises.
Cheers,
Biju
