We have a working RPM XO clock; no other driver except rpmcc should be
parenting directly to the fixed-factor xo_board clock nor should it be
reachable by that global name. Remove the name to that effect, so that
every clock relation is explicitly defined in DTS.
Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi | 7 ++++---
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
index 722dde560bec..edb03508dba3 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
@@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ xo_board: xo-board {
compatible = "fixed-clock";
#clock-cells = <0>;
clock-frequency = <19200000>;
- clock-output-names = "xo_board";
};
sleep_clk: sleep-clk {
@@ -306,6 +305,8 @@ rpm_requests: rpm-requests {
rpmcc: clock-controller {
compatible = "qcom,rpmcc-sm6125", "qcom,rpmcc";
#clock-cells = <1>;
+ clocks = <&xo_board>;
+ clock-names = "xo";
};
rpmpd: power-controller {
@@ -713,7 +714,7 @@ sdhc_1: mmc@4744000 {
clocks = <&gcc GCC_SDCC1_AHB_CLK>,
<&gcc GCC_SDCC1_APPS_CLK>,
- <&xo_board>;
+ <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_XO_CLK_SRC>;
clock-names = "iface", "core", "xo";
iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x160 0x0>;
@@ -740,7 +741,7 @@ sdhc_2: mmc@4784000 {
clocks = <&gcc GCC_SDCC2_AHB_CLK>,
<&gcc GCC_SDCC2_APPS_CLK>,
- <&xo_board>;
+ <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_XO_CLK_SRC>;
clock-names = "iface", "core", "xo";
iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x180 0x0>;
--
2.41.0
On 27/06/2023 23:14, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> We have a working RPM XO clock; no other driver except rpmcc should be
> parenting directly to the fixed-factor xo_board clock nor should it be
> reachable by that global name. Remove the name to that effect, so that
> every clock relation is explicitly defined in DTS.
>
> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> index 722dde560bec..edb03508dba3 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ xo_board: xo-board {
> compatible = "fixed-clock";
> #clock-cells = <0>;
> clock-frequency = <19200000>;
> - clock-output-names = "xo_board";
Why? I'd say, leave it.
With that fixed:
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
> };
>
> sleep_clk: sleep-clk {
> @@ -306,6 +305,8 @@ rpm_requests: rpm-requests {
> rpmcc: clock-controller {
> compatible = "qcom,rpmcc-sm6125", "qcom,rpmcc";
> #clock-cells = <1>;
> + clocks = <&xo_board>;
> + clock-names = "xo";
> };
>
> rpmpd: power-controller {
> @@ -713,7 +714,7 @@ sdhc_1: mmc@4744000 {
>
> clocks = <&gcc GCC_SDCC1_AHB_CLK>,
> <&gcc GCC_SDCC1_APPS_CLK>,
> - <&xo_board>;
> + <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_XO_CLK_SRC>;
> clock-names = "iface", "core", "xo";
> iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x160 0x0>;
>
> @@ -740,7 +741,7 @@ sdhc_2: mmc@4784000 {
>
> clocks = <&gcc GCC_SDCC2_AHB_CLK>,
> <&gcc GCC_SDCC2_APPS_CLK>,
> - <&xo_board>;
> + <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_XO_CLK_SRC>;
> clock-names = "iface", "core", "xo";
> iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x180 0x0>;
>
>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
On 2023-06-29 13:55:28, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On 27/06/2023 23:14, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > We have a working RPM XO clock; no other driver except rpmcc should be
> > parenting directly to the fixed-factor xo_board clock nor should it be
> > reachable by that global name. Remove the name to that effect, so that
> > every clock relation is explicitly defined in DTS.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi | 7 ++++---
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> > index 722dde560bec..edb03508dba3 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> > @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ xo_board: xo-board {
> > compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > #clock-cells = <0>;
> > clock-frequency = <19200000>;
> > - clock-output-names = "xo_board";
>
> Why? I'd say, leave it.
The exact reason is explained in the commit message.
>
> With that fixed:
Hence I don't think it makes sense to "fix" this.
- Marijn
> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 15:09, Marijn Suijten
<marijn.suijten@somainline.org> wrote:
>
> On 2023-06-29 13:55:28, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On 27/06/2023 23:14, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > > We have a working RPM XO clock; no other driver except rpmcc should be
> > > parenting directly to the fixed-factor xo_board clock nor should it be
> > > reachable by that global name. Remove the name to that effect, so that
> > > every clock relation is explicitly defined in DTS.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
> > > ---
> > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi | 7 ++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> > > index 722dde560bec..edb03508dba3 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> > > @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ xo_board: xo-board {
> > > compatible = "fixed-clock";
> > > #clock-cells = <0>;
> > > clock-frequency = <19200000>;
> > > - clock-output-names = "xo_board";
> >
> > Why? I'd say, leave it.
>
> The exact reason is explained in the commit message.
Usually we do no not kill the xo_board name for the sake of anybody
still looking for the old name. Weak argument, I know.
>
> >
> > With that fixed:
>
> Hence I don't think it makes sense to "fix" this.
>
> - Marijn
>
> > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
On 29.06.2023 14:26, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 15:09, Marijn Suijten
> <marijn.suijten@somainline.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-06-29 13:55:28, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2023 23:14, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>>> We have a working RPM XO clock; no other driver except rpmcc should be
>>>> parenting directly to the fixed-factor xo_board clock nor should it be
>>>> reachable by that global name. Remove the name to that effect, so that
>>>> every clock relation is explicitly defined in DTS.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi | 7 ++++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
>>>> index 722dde560bec..edb03508dba3 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
>>>> @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ xo_board: xo-board {
>>>> compatible = "fixed-clock";
>>>> #clock-cells = <0>;
>>>> clock-frequency = <19200000>;
>>>> - clock-output-names = "xo_board";
>>>
>>> Why? I'd say, leave it.
>>
>> The exact reason is explained in the commit message.
>
> Usually we do no not kill the xo_board name for the sake of anybody
> still looking for the old name. Weak argument, I know.
The only users are (rg -l '"xo_board"' drivers):
drivers/clk/qcom/mmcc-msm8974.c
drivers/clk/qcom/a53-pll.c
drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8974.c
drivers/clk/qcom/clk-smd-rpm.c
drivers/clk/qcom/mmcc-msm8996.c
drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8916.c
drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-apq8084.c
drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8996.c
drivers/clk/qcom/mmcc-apq8084.c
drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/hdmi/hdmi_phy_8996.c
This platform only binds clk-smd-rpm, but patch 11 provides a
direct reference in the DT.
Konrad
>
>>
>>>
>>> With that fixed:
>>
>> Hence I don't think it makes sense to "fix" this.
>>
>> - Marijn
>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
>
>
>
On 2023-06-29 21:14:47, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 29.06.2023 14:26, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 15:09, Marijn Suijten
> > <marijn.suijten@somainline.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2023-06-29 13:55:28, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> On 27/06/2023 23:14, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> >>>> We have a working RPM XO clock; no other driver except rpmcc should be
> >>>> parenting directly to the fixed-factor xo_board clock nor should it be
> >>>> reachable by that global name. Remove the name to that effect, so that
> >>>> every clock relation is explicitly defined in DTS.
> >>>>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi | 7 ++++---
> >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> >>>> index 722dde560bec..edb03508dba3 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
> >>>> @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ xo_board: xo-board {
> >>>> compatible = "fixed-clock";
> >>>> #clock-cells = <0>;
> >>>> clock-frequency = <19200000>;
> >>>> - clock-output-names = "xo_board";
> >>>
> >>> Why? I'd say, leave it.
> >>
> >> The exact reason is explained in the commit message.
> >
> > Usually we do no not kill the xo_board name for the sake of anybody
> > still looking for the old name. Weak argument, I know.
> The only users are (rg -l '"xo_board"' drivers):
>
> drivers/clk/qcom/mmcc-msm8974.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/a53-pll.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8974.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/clk-smd-rpm.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/mmcc-msm8996.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8916.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-apq8084.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8996.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/mmcc-apq8084.c
> drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/hdmi/hdmi_phy_8996.c
>
> This platform only binds clk-smd-rpm, but patch 11 provides a
> direct reference in the DT.
And following a quick check, those occurrences all have
.fw_name="xo",.name="xo_board", allowing the clock to be provided via
DT. For sm6125, I'd like it to be required like that: all dt-bindings
require an "xo" board where relevant, after all.
- Marijn
>
> Konrad
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> With that fixed:
> >>
> >> Hence I don't think it makes sense to "fix" this.
> >>
> >> - Marijn
> >>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
> >
> >
> >
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.