Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <4fc9873e87c11dce23099a24be34465f09f3a9a4.camel@aosc.io>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/12] clk: sunxi=ng: add support for R329 CCUs
From:   Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
To:     Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date:   Tue, 12 Jul 2022 19:57:29 +0800
In-Reply-To: <c858b944-d72f-4e59-6a1a-329b5b8949c4@sholland.org>
References: <20220422140902.1058101-1-icenowy@aosc.io>
         <BYAPR20MB2472930AAFFBDC0ACB9A7487BCF79@BYAPR20MB2472.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
         <c858b944-d72f-4e59-6a1a-329b5b8949c4@sholland.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.40.4 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

在 2022-04-23星期六的 21:12 -0500，Samuel Holland写道：
> On 4/22/22 10:41 AM, icenowy@outlook.com wrote:
> > From: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
> > 
> > Allwinner R329 has two CCUs, one in CPUX and another in PRCM.
> > 
> > Add support for them.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
> 
> There is a typo in your commit title. = should be -.
> 
> Thanks for updating the driver to use .fw_name and be loadable as a
> module. All
> of those changes look good.
> 
> There are still some missing clocks here compared to the BSP, and a
> couple of
> other minor issues. Please see my earlier review:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sunxi/99a74950-fdc0-ecfe-e5f0-ba4a7d8751f0@sholland.org/
> 
> So far it's been consistent that any settable bits in the CCU
> registers actually
> do something. So I would expect all of those bits to have an index
> reserved in
> the binding, even if we do not model them. I want to avoid having to

Sorry but I don't think it proper to reserve unclear bits, because
we're just allocating the numbers as a random sequence (in fact it's
the sequence that it gets implemented).

Or consider a structural number scheme, in which a value can be
uniquely predicted by its name?

> go back and
> add gates to the binding out-of-order later, like we are doing for
> H6.
> 
> Regards,
> Samuel