On 3/17/23 16:27, Rob Herring wrote:
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?
Yeah, that should be fine.
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.
Right, this is currently not possible since it depends on some work in
progress.
Thanks,
Cristian
