Hi,

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 11:57:33AM +0200, Philipp Rossak wrote:
> On 20.04.20 09:38, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > 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.
> > > > 
> > > > I think he left it out for a future update.
> > > > But best he comments himself.
> > > 
> > > I'm currently working on those bindings. They are now 90% done, but they are
> > > not finished till now. Currently there is some mainline support missing 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.
> > > 
> > > @Maxime: I totally agree on your point that a demo needs to be provided
> > > 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.
> > 
> > It looks like a power-domain to me, so you'd rather plug that into the genpd
> > framework.
> 
> I had a look on genpd and I'm not really sure if that fits.
> 
> 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 power
domains, so clocks might be a part of it, but most of the time it's going to 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 patches.
> > > I see there three options, which one do you prefer?:
> > > 
> > > 1. Provide now placeholder patches and send new patches, if everything is
> > > clear and other things are mainlined
> > > 2. Provide now patches as complete as possible and provide later patches to
> > > complete them when the R_PRCM things are mainlined
> > > 3. Leave them out, till the related work is mainlined and the bindings are
> > > final.
> > 
> > Like I said, the DT *has* to be backward-compatible, so for any DT patch that
> > you are asking to be merged, you should be prepared to support it indefinitely
> > and be able to run from it, and you won't be able to change the bindings later
> > on.
> 
> 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 for the
out-of-tree driver, and then lima/panfrost reused it.

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

Maxime