Re: [PATCH v3 07/15] dt-bindings: clock: Fix qcom,gpucc bindings for sdm845/sc7180/msm8998

From: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc: "Andy Gross" <agross@kernel.org>,
	"Bjorn Andersson" <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	"Jeffrey Hugo" <jhugo@codeaurora.org>,
	"Taniya Das" <tdas@codeaurora.org>,
	"Jeffrey Hugo" <jeffrey.l.hugo@gmail.com>,
	linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Harigovindan P" <harigovi@codeaurora.org>,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>,
	Kalyan Thota <kalyan_t@codeaurora.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
	Kristian H. Kristensen <hoegsberg@chromium.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/15] dt-bindings: clock: Fix qcom,gpucc bindings for sdm845/sc7180/msm8998
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 10:35:00 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=VmvgjUqRzFYNbb_w7QGq0+H9jnT=aS1Zq=PR7ybgSLyA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200203162954.DE0AD2086A@mail.kernel.org>

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:29 AM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Doug Anderson (2020-01-31 08:48:37)
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 8:43 AM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:12 PM Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The qcom,gpucc bindings had a few problems with them:
> > > >
> > > > 1. When things were converted to yaml the name of the "gpll0 main"
> > > >    clock got changed from "gpll0" to "gpll0_main".  Change it back for
> > > >    msm8998.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Apparently there is a push not to use purist aliases for clocks but
> > > >    instead to just use the internal Qualcomm names.  For sdm845 and
> > > >    sc7180 (where the drivers haven't already been changed) move in
> > > >    this direction.
> > > >
> > > > Things were also getting complicated harder to deal with by jamming
> > > > several SoCs into one file.  Splitting simplifies things.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 5c6f3a36b913 ("dt-bindings: clock: Add YAML schemas for the QCOM GPUCC clock bindings")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > - Added pointer to inlude file in description.
> > > > - Everyone but msm8998 now uses internal QC names.
> > > > - Fixed typo grpahics => graphics
> > > > - Split bindings into 3 files.
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > - Patch ("dt-bindings: clock: Fix qcom,gpucc...") new for v2.
> > > >
> > > >  .../devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml | 72 -------------------
> > > >  .../bindings/clock/qcom,msm8998-gpucc.yaml    | 66 +++++++++++++++++
> > > >  .../bindings/clock/qcom,sc7180-gpucc.yaml     | 72 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  .../bindings/clock/qcom,sdm845-gpucc.yaml     | 72 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  4 files changed, 210 insertions(+), 72 deletions(-)
> > > >  delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml
> > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,msm8998-gpucc.yaml
> > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sc7180-gpucc.yaml
> > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sdm845-gpucc.yaml
> > >
> > > I'm not seeing any differences in sdm845 and sc7180. Do those really
> > > need to be separate? It doesn't have to be all combined or all
> > > separate.
> >
> > They are the same, other than pointing to a different #include file.
> > I debated whether to put them in one file (arbitrarily named after one
> > SoC or the other) or to put them in individual files.  I got the
> > impression from Stephen that he'd prefer them to be separate files
> > even in the case that they were 99% identical, but I certainly could
> > have misunderstood.
> >
> > I'll do whatever you guys agree to.  If you want them in one file I'll
> > probably name it "qcom,sdm845-gpucc.yaml" just because that SoC is
> > earlier, unless someone tells me otherwise.
> >
>
> I'd prefer them to be split out and point at the include file so we know
> what numbers are valid. It provides clarity and helps avoid the back and
> forth of combining and splitting the files. We suffer the same problem
> on the driver side, and we've long given up trying to combine SoCs when
> they're otherwise fairly similar.

Thanks for clarifying!  Rob: I hope it's OK that I've gone ahead and
sent out v4 leaving this alone.  I knew you were interested in getting
the other bindings patch out sooner rather than later and I was hoping
to get both series out together so I could context switch to a few
other things early this week.  Apologies if this was moving too
fast...

-Doug