On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 05:45:55PM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> > Am 23.04.2020 um 17:00 schrieb Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>:
> >> One thing we can learn is that "core" seems to be a de facto standard 
> >> for the core clock-name. An alternative "gpu" is used by nvidia,gk20a.txt.
> > 
> > Usually IPs needs a few clocks:
> > - pclk or apb or reg: the clock clocking the "slave" bus to serve the registers
> > - axi or bus or ahb: the bus clocking the the "master" bus to get data from system memory
> > - core: the actual clock feeding the GPU logic
> 
> And the sgx544 seems to have two such clocks.
> 
> > Sometimes you have a single clock for slave and master bus.
> > 
> > But you can also have separate clocks for shader cores, .. this depends on the IP and it's architecture.
> > The IP can also have memories with separate clocks, etc...
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> > But all these clocks can be source by an unique clock on a SoC, but different on another
> > SoC, this is why it's important to list them all, even optional.
> > 
> > You'll certainly have at least a reset signal, and a power domain, these should exist and be optional.
> 
> Well, they exist only as hints in block diagrams of some SoC data
> sheets (so we do not know if they represent the imagination
> definitions) and the current driver code doesn't make use of it. Still
> the gpu core works.
> 
> So I do not see any urgent need to add a complete list to the bindings
> now.
> 
> Unless some special SoC integration makes use of them. Then it is IMHO
> easier to extend the bindings by a follow-up patch than now thinking
> about all potential options and bloating the bindings with things we
> (the open source community) doesn't and can't know.
> 
> My goal is to keep the bindings as minimalistic as possible. And reset
> lines and power domains are (at least for those we have in the works)
> not needed to make working systems.
> 
> Therefore, for clocks I also would start with a minimalistic approach
> for a single optional GPU core clock and leave out reset and power
> completely.

Like I said above, the DT is considered an ABI and you'll have to
maintain backward compatibility (ie, newer kernel running with older
DT). Therefore, you won't be able to require a new clock, reset or
power-domain later on for example.

I guess the question I'm really asking is: since you don't really know
how the hardware is integrated at the moment, why should we have that
discussion *now*. It's really not suprising that you don't know yet, so
I'm not sure why we need to rush in the bindings.

Maxime