From: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
Property '#power-domain-cells' is required as per defined in qcom,gcc.yaml
so add it for ipq6018 gcc device node to eliminate following warning in
dtbs_check:
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb: gcc@1800000:
'#power-domain-cells' is a required property
from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml#
Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi
index 39cd6b76b4c1..54914912d610 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi
@@ -386,6 +386,7 @@ gcc: gcc@1800000 {
reg = <0x0 0x01800000 0x0 0x80000>;
clocks = <&xo>, <&sleep_clk>;
clock-names = "xo", "sleep_clk";
+ #power-domain-cells = <1>;
#clock-cells = <1>;
#reset-cells = <1>;
};
---
base-commit: 17cb8a20bde66a520a2ca7aad1063e1ce7382240
change-id: 20240103-gcc-docs-update-fa604579e468
Best regards,
--
Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 10:06, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
>
> Property '#power-domain-cells' is required as per defined in qcom,gcc.yaml
> so add it for ipq6018 gcc device node to eliminate following warning in
> dtbs_check:
>
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb: gcc@1800000:
> '#power-domain-cells' is a required property
> from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml#
But ipq6018 doesn't implement GDSC support. So for the sake of fixing
the warning you are adding a bogus property.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi
> index 39cd6b76b4c1..54914912d610 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi
> @@ -386,6 +386,7 @@ gcc: gcc@1800000 {
> reg = <0x0 0x01800000 0x0 0x80000>;
> clocks = <&xo>, <&sleep_clk>;
> clock-names = "xo", "sleep_clk";
> + #power-domain-cells = <1>;
> #clock-cells = <1>;
> #reset-cells = <1>;
> };
>
> ---
> base-commit: 17cb8a20bde66a520a2ca7aad1063e1ce7382240
> change-id: 20240103-gcc-docs-update-fa604579e468
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
>
>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
On 04/01/2024 10:53, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 10:06, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
>>
>> Property '#power-domain-cells' is required as per defined in qcom,gcc.yaml
>> so add it for ipq6018 gcc device node to eliminate following warning in
>> dtbs_check:
>>
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb: gcc@1800000:
>> '#power-domain-cells' is a required property
>> from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml#
>
> But ipq6018 doesn't implement GDSC support. So for the sake of fixing
> the warning you are adding a bogus property.
Reminds me "fix" of removal of address/size-cells from DSI.
The point of fixing all the warnings is not only to make the warning go
away, but rather to fix the actual cause of the warning.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On 1/4/2024 5:53 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 10:06, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
>>
>> Property '#power-domain-cells' is required as per defined in qcom,gcc.yaml
>> so add it for ipq6018 gcc device node to eliminate following warning in
>> dtbs_check:
>>
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb: gcc@1800000:
>> '#power-domain-cells' is a required property
>> from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml#
>
> But ipq6018 doesn't implement GDSC support. So for the sake of fixing
> the warning you are adding a bogus property.
>
I agree. However, there are also some gcc drivers not implementing GDSC
support but the bindings are adding '#power-domain-cells' in the DT
example, such as: qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq4019.yaml,
qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-msm8660.yaml.
Actually I thought that maybe we should do a clean up by removing
'#power-domain-cells' out of the qcom,gcc.yaml binding and only adding
it into individual qcom,gcc-xxx.yaml for the driver which has
implemented GDSC support. I checked this with Taniya offline, but she
prefers only fixing it in ipq6018.dtsi as it doesn't hurt anything by
adding the property, and she expects the GDSC support should be existing
in most of qcom,gcc drivers especially the newer Qcom chipsets.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi
>> index 39cd6b76b4c1..54914912d610 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi
>> @@ -386,6 +386,7 @@ gcc: gcc@1800000 {
>> reg = <0x0 0x01800000 0x0 0x80000>;
>> clocks = <&xo>, <&sleep_clk>;
>> clock-names = "xo", "sleep_clk";
>> + #power-domain-cells = <1>;
>> #clock-cells = <1>;
>> #reset-cells = <1>;
>> };
>>
>> ---
>> base-commit: 17cb8a20bde66a520a2ca7aad1063e1ce7382240
>> change-id: 20240103-gcc-docs-update-fa604579e468
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --
>> Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
>>
>>
>
>
On 4.01.2024 11:13, Fenglin Wu wrote:
>
>
> On 1/4/2024 5:53 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 10:06, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Property '#power-domain-cells' is required as per defined in qcom,gcc.yaml
>>> so add it for ipq6018 gcc device node to eliminate following warning in
>>> dtbs_check:
>>>
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb: gcc@1800000:
>>> '#power-domain-cells' is a required property
>>> from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml#
>>
>> But ipq6018 doesn't implement GDSC support. So for the sake of fixing
>> the warning you are adding a bogus property.
>>
> I agree. However, there are also some gcc drivers not implementing GDSC support but the bindings are adding '#power-domain-cells' in the DT example, such as: qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq4019.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-msm8660.yaml.
>
> Actually I thought that maybe we should do a clean up by removing '#power-domain-cells' out of the qcom,gcc.yaml binding and only adding it into individual qcom,gcc-xxx.yaml for the driver which has implemented GDSC support. I checked this with Taniya offline, but she prefers only fixing it in ipq6018.dtsi as it doesn't hurt anything by adding the property, and she expects the GDSC support should be existing in most of qcom,gcc drivers especially the newer Qcom chipsets.
Before we start changing anything, we should assess whether these
platforms actually have GDSCs within this clock controller block,
even if they are (currently) not described in the clk driver.
Konrad
On 1/4/2024 6:16 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 4.01.2024 11:13, Fenglin Wu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/4/2024 5:53 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 10:06, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Property '#power-domain-cells' is required as per defined in qcom,gcc.yaml
>>>> so add it for ipq6018 gcc device node to eliminate following warning in
>>>> dtbs_check:
>>>>
>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb: gcc@1800000:
>>>> '#power-domain-cells' is a required property
>>>> from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml#
>>>
>>> But ipq6018 doesn't implement GDSC support. So for the sake of fixing
>>> the warning you are adding a bogus property.
>>>
>> I agree. However, there are also some gcc drivers not implementing GDSC support but the bindings are adding '#power-domain-cells' in the DT example, such as: qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq4019.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-msm8660.yaml.
>>
>> Actually I thought that maybe we should do a clean up by removing '#power-domain-cells' out of the qcom,gcc.yaml binding and only adding it into individual qcom,gcc-xxx.yaml for the driver which has implemented GDSC support. I checked this with Taniya offline, but she prefers only fixing it in ipq6018.dtsi as it doesn't hurt anything by adding the property, and she expects the GDSC support should be existing in most of qcom,gcc drivers especially the newer Qcom chipsets.
>
> Before we start changing anything, we should assess whether these
> platforms actually have GDSCs within this clock controller block,
> even if they are (currently) not described in the clk driver.
>
I would assume '#power-domain-cells' is only required for drivers which
register GDSC as power-domain device, for drivers that only configure
GDSC during probe or for platforms have GDSC but not register them as
power-domain device, making '#power-domain-cells' as a required property
doesn't help anything but just generating more dtbs check warnings.
> Konrad
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 12:27, Fenglin Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/4/2024 6:16 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> > On 4.01.2024 11:13, Fenglin Wu wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 1/4/2024 5:53 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 10:06, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay
> >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
> >>>>
> >>>> Property '#power-domain-cells' is required as per defined in qcom,gcc.yaml
> >>>> so add it for ipq6018 gcc device node to eliminate following warning in
> >>>> dtbs_check:
> >>>>
> >>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb: gcc@1800000:
> >>>> '#power-domain-cells' is a required property
> >>>> from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml#
> >>>
> >>> But ipq6018 doesn't implement GDSC support. So for the sake of fixing
> >>> the warning you are adding a bogus property.
> >>>
> >> I agree. However, there are also some gcc drivers not implementing GDSC support but the bindings are adding '#power-domain-cells' in the DT example, such as: qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq4019.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-msm8660.yaml.
> >>
> >> Actually I thought that maybe we should do a clean up by removing '#power-domain-cells' out of the qcom,gcc.yaml binding and only adding it into individual qcom,gcc-xxx.yaml for the driver which has implemented GDSC support. I checked this with Taniya offline, but she prefers only fixing it in ipq6018.dtsi as it doesn't hurt anything by adding the property, and she expects the GDSC support should be existing in most of qcom,gcc drivers especially the newer Qcom chipsets.
> >
> > Before we start changing anything, we should assess whether these
> > platforms actually have GDSCs within this clock controller block,
> > even if they are (currently) not described in the clk driver.
> >
> I would assume '#power-domain-cells' is only required for drivers which
> register GDSC as power-domain device, for drivers that only configure
> GDSC during probe or for platforms have GDSC but not register them as
> power-domain device, making '#power-domain-cells' as a required property
> doesn't help anything but just generating more dtbs check warnings.
If there is a hardware GDSC, it should be registered in software
unless there is a good reason to do otherwise.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
On 04. 01. 2024. 11:16, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 4.01.2024 11:13, Fenglin Wu wrote:
>>
>> On 1/4/2024 5:53 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 10:06, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> From: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Property '#power-domain-cells' is required as per defined in qcom,gcc.yaml
>>>> so add it for ipq6018 gcc device node to eliminate following warning in
>>>> dtbs_check:
>>>>
>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb: gcc@1800000:
>>>> '#power-domain-cells' is a required property
>>>> from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml#
>>> But ipq6018 doesn't implement GDSC support. So for the sake of fixing
>>> the warning you are adding a bogus property.
>>>
>> I agree. However, there are also some gcc drivers not implementing GDSC support but the bindings are adding '#power-domain-cells' in the DT example, such as: qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq4019.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-msm8660.yaml.
>>
>> Actually I thought that maybe we should do a clean up by removing '#power-domain-cells' out of the qcom,gcc.yaml binding and only adding it into individual qcom,gcc-xxx.yaml for the driver which has implemented GDSC support. I checked this with Taniya offline, but she prefers only fixing it in ipq6018.dtsi as it doesn't hurt anything by adding the property, and she expects the GDSC support should be existing in most of qcom,gcc drivers especially the newer Qcom chipsets.
> Before we start changing anything, we should assess whether these
> platforms actually have GDSCs within this clock controller block,
> even if they are (currently) not described in the clk driver.
Hi,
IPQ6018 has GDSC-s, at least for the USB-s.
I tried configuring them a while ago, but the USB2.0 GDSC seems to
either have a HW bug or
it uses some special configuration as its status bits never show that
its ON [1].
[1]
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/patch/[email protected]/
Regards,
Robert
>
> Konrad
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 12:16, Konrad Dybcio <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 4.01.2024 11:13, Fenglin Wu wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 1/4/2024 5:53 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 10:06, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> From: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> Property '#power-domain-cells' is required as per defined in qcom,gcc.yaml
> >>> so add it for ipq6018 gcc device node to eliminate following warning in
> >>> dtbs_check:
> >>>
> >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb: gcc@1800000:
> >>> '#power-domain-cells' is a required property
> >>> from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml#
> >>
> >> But ipq6018 doesn't implement GDSC support. So for the sake of fixing
> >> the warning you are adding a bogus property.
> >>
> > I agree. However, there are also some gcc drivers not implementing GDSC support but the bindings are adding '#power-domain-cells' in the DT example, such as: qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq4019.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-msm8660.yaml.
> >
> > Actually I thought that maybe we should do a clean up by removing '#power-domain-cells' out of the qcom,gcc.yaml binding and only adding it into individual qcom,gcc-xxx.yaml for the driver which has implemented GDSC support. I checked this with Taniya offline, but she prefers only fixing it in ipq6018.dtsi as it doesn't hurt anything by adding the property, and she expects the GDSC support should be existing in most of qcom,gcc drivers especially the newer Qcom chipsets.
>
> Before we start changing anything, we should assess whether these
> platforms actually have GDSCs within this clock controller block,
> even if they are (currently) not described in the clk driver.
APQ8064 / MSM8960 / MSM8x60 (and thus I assume IPQ8064) have an older
power rail control mechanism called footswitch / GFS_CTL. We do not
implement it (for now), but it might be worth implementing it as the
question has been raised.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
On 1/4/2024 6:32 PM, Robert Marko wrote:
>
> On 04. 01. 2024. 11:16, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 4.01.2024 11:13, Fenglin Wu wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/4/2024 5:53 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 10:06, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> From: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> Property '#power-domain-cells' is required as per defined in
>>>>> qcom,gcc.yaml
>>>>> so add it for ipq6018 gcc device node to eliminate following
>>>>> warning in
>>>>> dtbs_check:
>>>>>
>>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb: gcc@1800000:
>>>>> '#power-domain-cells' is a required property
>>>>> from schema $id:
>>>>> http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml#
>>>> But ipq6018 doesn't implement GDSC support. So for the sake of fixing
>>>> the warning you are adding a bogus property.
>>>>
>>> I agree. However, there are also some gcc drivers not implementing
>>> GDSC support but the bindings are adding '#power-domain-cells' in the
>>> DT example, such as: qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq4019.yaml,
>>> qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-msm8660.yaml.
>>>
>>> Actually I thought that maybe we should do a clean up by removing
>>> '#power-domain-cells' out of the qcom,gcc.yaml binding and only
>>> adding it into individual qcom,gcc-xxx.yaml for the driver which has
>>> implemented GDSC support. I checked this with Taniya offline, but she
>>> prefers only fixing it in ipq6018.dtsi as it doesn't hurt anything by
>>> adding the property, and she expects the GDSC support should be
>>> existing in most of qcom,gcc drivers especially the newer Qcom chipsets.
>> Before we start changing anything, we should assess whether these
>> platforms actually have GDSCs within this clock controller block,
>> even if they are (currently) not described in the clk driver.
> Hi,
> IPQ6018 has GDSC-s, at least for the USB-s.
> I tried configuring them a while ago, but the USB2.0 GDSC seems to
> either have a HW bug or
> it uses some special configuration as its status bits never show that
> its ON [1].
>
> [1]
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/patch/[email protected]/
>
Thanks for the link! I checked the spec internal, and I did see GDSC
device for USB0/USB1 controller is present in GCC clock controller.
So considering there is a patch ongoing to add GDSC device for ipq6018
gcc driver, can the DT commit which adds '#power-domain-cells' be accepted?
> Regards,
> Robert
>
>>
>> Konrad
On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 12:41, Fenglin Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/4/2024 6:32 PM, Robert Marko wrote:
> >
> > On 04. 01. 2024. 11:16, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> >> On 4.01.2024 11:13, Fenglin Wu wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 1/4/2024 5:53 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 10:06, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> From: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Property '#power-domain-cells' is required as per defined in
> >>>>> qcom,gcc.yaml
> >>>>> so add it for ipq6018 gcc device node to eliminate following
> >>>>> warning in
> >>>>> dtbs_check:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb: gcc@1800000:
> >>>>> '#power-domain-cells' is a required property
> >>>>> from schema $id:
> >>>>> http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml#
> >>>> But ipq6018 doesn't implement GDSC support. So for the sake of fixing
> >>>> the warning you are adding a bogus property.
> >>>>
> >>> I agree. However, there are also some gcc drivers not implementing
> >>> GDSC support but the bindings are adding '#power-domain-cells' in the
> >>> DT example, such as: qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq4019.yaml,
> >>> qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-msm8660.yaml.
> >>>
> >>> Actually I thought that maybe we should do a clean up by removing
> >>> '#power-domain-cells' out of the qcom,gcc.yaml binding and only
> >>> adding it into individual qcom,gcc-xxx.yaml for the driver which has
> >>> implemented GDSC support. I checked this with Taniya offline, but she
> >>> prefers only fixing it in ipq6018.dtsi as it doesn't hurt anything by
> >>> adding the property, and she expects the GDSC support should be
> >>> existing in most of qcom,gcc drivers especially the newer Qcom chipsets.
> >> Before we start changing anything, we should assess whether these
> >> platforms actually have GDSCs within this clock controller block,
> >> even if they are (currently) not described in the clk driver.
> > Hi,
> > IPQ6018 has GDSC-s, at least for the USB-s.
> > I tried configuring them a while ago, but the USB2.0 GDSC seems to
> > either have a HW bug or
> > it uses some special configuration as its status bits never show that
> > its ON [1].
> >
> > [1]
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/patch/[email protected]/
> >
> Thanks for the link! I checked the spec internal, and I did see GDSC
> device for USB0/USB1 controller is present in GCC clock controller.
> So considering there is a patch ongoing to add GDSC device for ipq6018
> gcc driver, can the DT commit which adds '#power-domain-cells' be accepted?
What for?
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
On 1/4/2024 6:49 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 12:41, Fenglin Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/4/2024 6:32 PM, Robert Marko wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04. 01. 2024. 11:16, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 4.01.2024 11:13, Fenglin Wu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/4/2024 5:53 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 10:06, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Property '#power-domain-cells' is required as per defined in
>>>>>>> qcom,gcc.yaml
>>>>>>> so add it for ipq6018 gcc device node to eliminate following
>>>>>>> warning in
>>>>>>> dtbs_check:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb: gcc@1800000:
>>>>>>> '#power-domain-cells' is a required property
>>>>>>> from schema $id:
>>>>>>> http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml#
>>>>>> But ipq6018 doesn't implement GDSC support. So for the sake of fixing
>>>>>> the warning you are adding a bogus property.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I agree. However, there are also some gcc drivers not implementing
>>>>> GDSC support but the bindings are adding '#power-domain-cells' in the
>>>>> DT example, such as: qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq4019.yaml,
>>>>> qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-msm8660.yaml.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually I thought that maybe we should do a clean up by removing
>>>>> '#power-domain-cells' out of the qcom,gcc.yaml binding and only
>>>>> adding it into individual qcom,gcc-xxx.yaml for the driver which has
>>>>> implemented GDSC support. I checked this with Taniya offline, but she
>>>>> prefers only fixing it in ipq6018.dtsi as it doesn't hurt anything by
>>>>> adding the property, and she expects the GDSC support should be
>>>>> existing in most of qcom,gcc drivers especially the newer Qcom chipsets.
>>>> Before we start changing anything, we should assess whether these
>>>> platforms actually have GDSCs within this clock controller block,
>>>> even if they are (currently) not described in the clk driver.
>>> Hi,
>>> IPQ6018 has GDSC-s, at least for the USB-s.
>>> I tried configuring them a while ago, but the USB2.0 GDSC seems to
>>> either have a HW bug or
>>> it uses some special configuration as its status bits never show that
>>> its ON [1].
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/patch/[email protected]/
>>>
>> Thanks for the link! I checked the spec internal, and I did see GDSC
>> device for USB0/USB1 controller is present in GCC clock controller.
>> So considering there is a patch ongoing to add GDSC device for ipq6018
>> gcc driver, can the DT commit which adds '#power-domain-cells' be accepted?
>
> What for?
Maria ([email protected], copied) is working on automation tool in
Qcom internally to check dt_binding and dtbs and she expects all the
warnings/errors reported on Qcom board files can be fixed. She can help
to comment further.
>
On 04/01/2024 11:55, Fenglin Wu wrote:
>
>
> On 1/4/2024 6:49 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 12:41, Fenglin Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1/4/2024 6:32 PM, Robert Marko wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 04. 01. 2024. 11:16, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>>> On 4.01.2024 11:13, Fenglin Wu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/4/2024 5:53 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 10:06, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay
>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Property '#power-domain-cells' is required as per defined in
>>>>>>>> qcom,gcc.yaml
>>>>>>>> so add it for ipq6018 gcc device node to eliminate following
>>>>>>>> warning in
>>>>>>>> dtbs_check:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb: gcc@1800000:
>>>>>>>> '#power-domain-cells' is a required property
>>>>>>>> from schema $id:
>>>>>>>> http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml#
>>>>>>> But ipq6018 doesn't implement GDSC support. So for the sake of fixing
>>>>>>> the warning you are adding a bogus property.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. However, there are also some gcc drivers not implementing
>>>>>> GDSC support but the bindings are adding '#power-domain-cells' in the
>>>>>> DT example, such as: qcom,gcc-apq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq4019.yaml,
>>>>>> qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml, qcom,gcc-ipq8064.yaml, qcom,gcc-msm8660.yaml.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually I thought that maybe we should do a clean up by removing
>>>>>> '#power-domain-cells' out of the qcom,gcc.yaml binding and only
>>>>>> adding it into individual qcom,gcc-xxx.yaml for the driver which has
>>>>>> implemented GDSC support. I checked this with Taniya offline, but she
>>>>>> prefers only fixing it in ipq6018.dtsi as it doesn't hurt anything by
>>>>>> adding the property, and she expects the GDSC support should be
>>>>>> existing in most of qcom,gcc drivers especially the newer Qcom chipsets.
>>>>> Before we start changing anything, we should assess whether these
>>>>> platforms actually have GDSCs within this clock controller block,
>>>>> even if they are (currently) not described in the clk driver.
>>>> Hi,
>>>> IPQ6018 has GDSC-s, at least for the USB-s.
>>>> I tried configuring them a while ago, but the USB2.0 GDSC seems to
>>>> either have a HW bug or
>>>> it uses some special configuration as its status bits never show that
>>>> its ON [1].
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-msm/patch/[email protected]/
>>>>
>>> Thanks for the link! I checked the spec internal, and I did see GDSC
>>> device for USB0/USB1 controller is present in GCC clock controller.
>>> So considering there is a patch ongoing to add GDSC device for ipq6018
>>> gcc driver, can the DT commit which adds '#power-domain-cells' be accepted?
>>
>> What for?
> Maria ([email protected], copied) is working on automation tool in
> Qcom internally to check dt_binding and dtbs and she expects all the
Check existing tree is trivial, I had something running months ago.
Unless you meant checking patches before you send them?
> warnings/errors reported on Qcom board files can be fixed. She can help
> to comment further.
Anyway, fixing something incorrectly just because your tool cannot
handle existing issues, is not the reason.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 11:53:46AM +0200, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Jan 2024 at 10:06, Fenglin Wu via B4 Relay
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
> >
> > Property '#power-domain-cells' is required as per defined in qcom,gcc.yaml
> > so add it for ipq6018 gcc device node to eliminate following warning in
> > dtbs_check:
> >
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dtb: gcc@1800000:
> > '#power-domain-cells' is a required property
> > from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/qcom,gcc-ipq6018.yaml#
>
> But ipq6018 doesn't implement GDSC support. So for the sake of fixing
> the warning you are adding a bogus property.
>
The platform does indeed have two USB GDSCs, which you can see being
referred to in gcc_ipq6018_probe().
But while this patch removes a warning, I think the proper solution
would be to actually describe those GDSCs in the DeviceTree as well.
Unfortunately this would imply the need to actually implement them in
Linux as well.
Alternatively, there exist a reason for not actually change the state of
these GDSCs at runtime - i.e. the gcc driver is doing the right thing.
But if so, this patch would be wrong...
Regards,
Bjorn
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi
> > index 39cd6b76b4c1..54914912d610 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018.dtsi
> > @@ -386,6 +386,7 @@ gcc: gcc@1800000 {
> > reg = <0x0 0x01800000 0x0 0x80000>;
> > clocks = <&xo>, <&sleep_clk>;
> > clock-names = "xo", "sleep_clk";
> > + #power-domain-cells = <1>;
> > #clock-cells = <1>;
> > #reset-cells = <1>;
> > };
> >
> > ---
> > base-commit: 17cb8a20bde66a520a2ca7aad1063e1ce7382240
> > change-id: 20240103-gcc-docs-update-fa604579e468
> >
> > Best regards,
> > --
> > Fenglin Wu <[email protected]>
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> With best wishes
> Dmitry