Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:21:29 +0200
From:   Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
To:     Philipp Rossak <embed3d@gmail.com>
Cc:     "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@goldelico.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        =?utf-8?Q?Beno=C3=AEt?= Cousson <bcousson@baylibre.com>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
        Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>,
        Paul Burton <paulburton@kernel.org>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>, Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
        "open list:DRM PANEL DRIVERS" <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-omap <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
        OpenPVRSGX Linux Driver Group <openpvrsgx-devgroup@letux.org>,
        Discussions about the Letux Kernel 
        <letux-kernel@openphoenux.org>, kernel@pyra-handheld.com,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        arm-soc <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/12] ARM/MIPS: DTS: add child nodes describing the
 PVRSGX GPU present in some OMAP SoC and JZ4780 (and many more)
Message-ID: <20200421112129.zjmkmzo3aftksgka@gilmour.lan>
References: <cover.1586939718.git.hns@goldelico.com>
 <20200415101008.zxzxca2vlfsefpdv@gilmour.lan>
 <2E3401F1-A106-4396-8FE6-51CAB72926A4@goldelico.com>
 <20200415130233.rgn7xrtwqicptke2@gilmour.lan>
 <C589D06E-435E-4316-AD0A-8498325039E3@goldelico.com>
 <10969e64-fe1f-d692-4984-4ba916bd2161@gmail.com>
 <20200420073842.nx4xb3zqvu23arkc@gilmour.lan>
 <b5a06c19-7a3e-bcb8-5ae3-76901b9c6c35@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bsmwn6lsujflbhcr"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b5a06c19-7a3e-bcb8-5ae3-76901b9c6c35@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


--bsmwn6lsujflbhcr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 11:57:33AM +0200, Philipp Rossak wrote:
> On 20.04.20 09:38, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi,
> >=20
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 02:09:06PM +0200, Philipp Rossak wrote:
> > > > > I'm a bit skeptical on that one since it doesn't even list the
> > > > > interrupts connected to the GPU that the binding mandates.
> > > >=20
> > > > I think he left it out for a future update.
> > > > But best he comments himself.
> > >=20
> > > I'm currently working on those bindings. They are now 90% done, but t=
hey are
> > > not finished till now. Currently there is some mainline support missi=
ng to
> > > add the full binding. The A83T and also the A31/A31s have a GPU Power=
 Off
> > > Gating Register in the R_PRCM module, that is not supported right now=
 in
> > > Mainline. The Register need to be written when the GPU is powered on =
and
> > > off.
> > >=20
> > > @Maxime: I totally agree on your point that a demo needs to be provid=
ed
> > > before the related DTS patches should be provided. That's the reason =
why I
> > > added the gpu placeholder patches.
> > > Do you have an idea how a driver for the R_PRCM stuff can look like? =
I'm not
> > > that experienced with the clock driver framework.
> >=20
> > It looks like a power-domain to me, so you'd rather plug that into the =
genpd
> > framework.
>=20
> I had a look on genpd and I'm not really sure if that fits.
>=20
> It is basically some bit that verify that the clocks should be enabled or
> disabled.

No, it can do much more than that. It's a framework to control the SoCs pow=
er
domains, so clocks might be a part of it, but most of the time it's going t=
o be
about powering up a particular device.

> I think this is better placed somewhere in the clocking framework.
> I see there more similarities to the gating stuff.
> Do you think it is suitable to implement it like the clock gating?

I'm really not sure what makes you think that this should be modelled as a
clock?

> > > The big question is right now how to proceed with the A83T and A31s p=
atches.
> > > I see there three options, which one do you prefer?:
> > >=20
> > > 1. Provide now placeholder patches and send new patches, if everythin=
g is
> > > clear and other things are mainlined
> > > 2. Provide now patches as complete as possible and provide later patc=
hes to
> > > complete them when the R_PRCM things are mainlined
> > > 3. Leave them out, till the related work is mainlined and the binding=
s are
> > > final.
> >=20
> > Like I said, the DT *has* to be backward-compatible, so for any DT patc=
h that
> > you are asking to be merged, you should be prepared to support it indef=
initely
> > and be able to run from it, and you won't be able to change the binding=
s later
> > on.
>=20
> I agree on your points. But is this also suitable to drivers that are
> currently off tree and might be merged in one or two years?

This is what we done for the Mali. The devicetree binding was first done fo=
r the
out-of-tree driver, and then lima/panfrost reused it.

The key thing here is to have enough confidence about how the hardware work=
s so
that you can accurately describe it.

Maxime

--bsmwn6lsujflbhcr
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iHUEABYIAB0WIQRcEzekXsqa64kGDp7j7w1vZxhRxQUCXp7XOQAKCRDj7w1vZxhR
xY2FAP98NEADiujPOYdZcBw58gJhiTHRG5M+7cY4QmY6LLWi6wEAmaVzzE9csrhP
gszgPuCUwSKxGaUpbu0VHqeb3LVqwQs=
=LITU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--bsmwn6lsujflbhcr--