From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E27FC74A5B for ; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 17:21:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230318AbjCQRVh (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Mar 2023 13:21:37 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:45328 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230232AbjCQRV0 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Mar 2023 13:21:26 -0400 Received: from madras.collabora.co.uk (madras.collabora.co.uk [IPv6:2a00:1098:0:82:1000:25:2eeb:e5ab]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08BA1E6DAD; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 10:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.90] (unknown [188.24.156.231]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: cristicc) by madras.collabora.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4974566030B7; Fri, 17 Mar 2023 17:21:06 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=collabora.com; s=mail; t=1679073667; bh=I+Gvi5bzAnoJMxokQ84k9j+H+aFc/IN+XvqBbP6wpvg=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=durtctia6ys5ahpIvt7urL9eaWQyHgUoJkCI/3sUZz+Cz60FX1D6+GjNICq2duwN1 xZRgyxlKfz+V1Amu3xsfbnZ5TCoifrJHIDWxHV55eBpfNc61nV9yFIsxGnDnFbZfL2 jYOSnI0gYZwIc/w9qHpoBRNEA7zjzTWC1zI2/mjj65/yNAfIgtvCRFU9Wo67hfWk66 K5R+RDs/sD9q/OPpiZpz1oJqo3LYu/m3v3JqXR6K5O9UJsURGl8aes3t5ZRZ5kNCs8 ZHUrK6VT9Euy6HTz+SS0RdaMhV37DWSBfmRncbIsjROD8ggD8T5h1hwSW1Cpv2v9d4 UdRzr7Qu4U2iA== Message-ID: <793d6c43-d71e-3ffc-17c2-26062e40b4bc@collabora.com> Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2023 19:21:03 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Document assigned-clocks and assigned-clock-rates Content-Language: en-US To: Rob Herring Cc: Sudeep Holla , Stephen Boyd , Cristian Marussi , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Liam Girdwood , Mark Brown , Nicolas Frattaroli , Heiko Stuebner , Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Iwai , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Daniel Drake , Katsuhiro Suzuki , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, kernel@collabora.com References: <20230315114806.3819515-1-cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com> <20230315114806.3819515-2-cristian.ciocaltea@collabora.com> <20230316203417.GA3833267-robh@kernel.org> <20230316222619.r4jzk3lzdxzamr2s@bogus> From: Cristian Ciocaltea In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/17/23 16:27, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 4:59 AM Cristian Ciocaltea > wrote: >> >> On 3/17/23 00:26, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 03:34:17PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: >>>> +Stephen >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 01:47:56PM +0200, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: >>>>> Since commit df4fdd0db475 ("dt-bindings: firmware: arm,scmi: Restrict >>>>> protocol child node properties") the following dtbs_check warning is >>>>> shown: >>>>> >>>>> rk3588-rock-5b.dtb: scmi: protocol@14: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('assigned-clock-rates', 'assigned-clocks' were unexpected) >>>> >>>> I think that's a somewhat questionable use of assigned-clock-rates. It >>>> should be located with the consumer rather than the provider IMO. The >>>> consumers of those 2 clocks are the CPU nodes. >>>> >>> >>> Agreed. We definitely don't use those in the scmi clk provider driver. >>> So NACK for the generic SCMI binding change. >> >> According to [1], "configuration of common clocks, which affect multiple >> consumer devices can be similarly specified in the clock provider node". > > True, but in this case it's really a single consumer because it's all > CPU nodes which are managed together. > >> That would avoid duplicating assigned-clock-rates in the CPU nodes. > > Wouldn't one node be sufficient? Yeah, that should be fine. > Thinking more about this, why aren't you using OPP tables to define > CPU frequencies. Assigned-clocks looks like a temporary hack because > you haven't done proper OPP tables. Right, this is currently not possible since it depends on some work in progress. Thanks, Cristian