On 13/09/2023 14:08, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 13.09.2023 09:13, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/09/2023 15:31, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> These clocks are now handled from within the icc framework and are
>>> no longer registered from within the CCF. Remove them.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
> [...]
>
>>> anoc2_smmu: iommu@16c0000 {
>>> compatible = "qcom,sdm630-smmu-v2", "qcom,smmu-v2";
>>> reg = <0x016c0000 0x40000>;
>>> -
>>> - assigned-clocks = <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_AGGR2_NOC_CLK>;
>>> - assigned-clock-rates = <1000>;
>>> - clocks = <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_AGGR2_NOC_CLK>;
>>> - clock-names = "bus";
>>
>> This is also against bindings. After your patch #4, such bus clock (or
>> other combinations) is still required.
> So, we have 4 SMMU instances on this platform:
>
> MMSS (described, iface, mem, mem_iface)
> GPU (described, iface-mm, iface-smmu, bus-smmu)
>
> ANOC2 (this one, no clocks after removing rpmcc bus)
> LPASS (no clocks)
Ah, I did not notice it.
>
> Should I then create a new entry in the bindings, replicating
> what's there for msm8998[1] and dropping the entry with just "bus"
> from anyOf?
So this passes the bindings, right? anyOf: in the binding should allow
also no match, so this should be fine. However indeed we need to drop
the "bus" entry, because it is not valid anymore.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
