Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200331133346.372517-1-robert.foss@linaro.org>
 <20200331133346.372517-2-robert.foss@linaro.org> <20200401080705.j4goeqcqhoswhx4u@gilmour.lan>
 <CAG3jFyvUd08U9yNVPUD9Y=nd5Xpcx34GcHJRhtvAAycoq3qimg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200403232736.GA6127@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk> <20200404093446.vuvwrhn5436h4d3s@gilmour.lan>
 <20200406083506.GE6127@valkosipuli.retiisi.org.uk> <20200407083647.4mocdl7aqa3x737q@gilmour.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20200407083647.4mocdl7aqa3x737q@gilmour.lan>
From:   Robert Foss <robert.foss@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 7 Apr 2020 13:29:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CAG3jFyvd32pWppubMoOoyH9eO2XLjwUXMC7p4xtv8m+JkPv6vw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] media: dt-bindings: ov8856: Document YAML bindings
To:     Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
Cc:     Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi>,
        Dongchun Zhu <dongchun.zhu@mediatek.com>,
        Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>,
        linux-media <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/FREESCALE IMX / MXC ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hey Maixme & Sakari,

On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 10:36, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
>
> Hi Sakari,
>
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2020 at 11:35:07AM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > > But that 19.2MHz is not a limitation of the device itself, it's a
> > > limitation of our implementation, so we can instead implement
> > > something equivalent in Linux using a clk_set_rate to 19.2MHz (to make
> > > sure that our parent clock is configured at the right rate) and the
> > > clk_get_rate and compare that to 19.2MHz (to make sure that it's not
> > > been rounded too far apart from the frequency we expect).
> > >
> > > This is doing exactly the same thing, except that we don't encode our
> > > implementation limitations in the DT, but in the driver instead.
> >
> > What I really wanted to say that a driver that doesn't get the clock
> > frequency from DT but still sets that frequency is broken.
> >
> > This frequency is highly system specific, and in many cases only a certain
> > frequency is usable, for a few reasons: On many SoCs, not all common
> > frequencies can be used (e.g. 9,6 MHz, 19,2 MHz and 24 MHz; while others
> > are being used as well), and then that frequency affects the usable CSI-2
> > bus frequencies directly --- and of those, only safe, known-good ones
> > should be used. IOW, getting the external clock frequency wrong typically
> > has an effect that that none of the known-good CSI-2 bus clock frequencies
> > are available.
>
> So clock-frequency is not about the "Frequency of the xvclk clock in
> Hertz", but the frequency at which that clock must run on this
> particular SoC / board to be functional?
>
> If so, then yeah, we should definitely keep it, but the documentation
> of the binding should be made clearer as well.
>

Alright so, let me summarise the desired approach then.

ACPI:
  - Fetch the "clock-frequency" property
  - Verify it to be 19.2Mhz

DT:
  - Fetch the "clock-frequency" property
  - Verify it to be 19.2Mhz
  - Get xvclk clock
  - Get xvclk clock rate
  - Verify xvclk clock rate to be 19.2Mhz

Since the xvclk clock isn't available under ACPI, this is how the two
cases would be distinguished between.
Does this sound about right?

> assigned-clock-rates should still go away though.

Ack.

>
> Maxime