Re: [PATCH 01/11] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Document assigned-clocks and assigned-clock-rates

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 4:59 AM Cristian Ciocaltea
<cristian.ciocaltea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/17/23 00:26, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 03:34:17PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> +Stephen
> >>
> >> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 01:47:56PM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> >>> Since commit df4fdd0db475 ("dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict
> >>> protocol child node properties") the following dtbs_check warning is
> >>> shown:
> >>>
> >>>    rk3588-rock-5b.dtb: scmi: protocol@14: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('assigned-clock-rates', 'assigned-clocks' were unexpected)
> >>
> >> I think that's a somewhat questionable use of assigned-clock-rates. It
> >> should be located with the consumer rather than the provider IMO. The
> >> consumers of those 2 clocks are the CPU nodes.
> >>
> >
> > Agreed. We definitely don't use those in the scmi clk provider driver.
> > So NACK for the generic SCMI binding change.
> According to [1], "configuration of common clocks, which affect multiple
> consumer devices can be similarly specified in the clock provider node".

True, but in this case it's really a single consumer because it's all
CPU nodes which are managed together.

> That would avoid duplicating assigned-clock-rates in the CPU nodes.

Wouldn't one node be sufficient?

Thinking more about this, why aren't you using OPP tables to define
CPU frequencies. Assigned-clocks looks like a temporary hack because
you haven't done proper OPP tables.


[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux PPP]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linmodem]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Kernel for ARM]

  Powered by Linux