Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Apr 2024 19:56:51 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 RESEND 1/6] dt-bindings: clock: qcom: Add SM8650 video clock controller | From | Jagadeesh Kona <> |
| |
On 4/25/2024 7:02 PM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: > Hi Jagadeesh, > > On 4/22/24 14:00, Jagadeesh Kona wrote: >> >> On 4/19/2024 2:31 AM, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote: >>> Hello Jagadeesh, >>> >>> On 3/25/24 08:07, Jagadeesh Kona wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 3/21/2024 6:42 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 11:26, Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@quicinc.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Extend device tree bindings of SM8450 videocc to add support >>>>>> for SM8650 videocc. While it at, fix the incorrect header >>>>>> include in sm8450 videocc yaml documentation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@quicinc.com> >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml | 4 >>>>>> +++- >>>>>> include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.h | 8 >>>>>> +++++++- >>>>>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git >>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml >>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml >>>>>> index bad8f019a8d3..79f55620eb70 100644 >>>>>> --- >>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml >>>>>> +++ >>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.yaml >>>>>> @@ -8,18 +8,20 @@ title: Qualcomm Video Clock & Reset Controller on >>>>>> SM8450 >>>>>> >>>>>> maintainers: >>>>>> - Taniya Das <quic_tdas@quicinc.com> >>>>>> + - Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@quicinc.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> description: | >>>>>> Qualcomm video clock control module provides the clocks, resets >>>>>> and power >>>>>> domains on SM8450. >>>>>> >>>>>> - See also:: include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,videocc-sm8450.h >>>>>> + See also:: include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.h >>>>> >>>>> This almost pleads to go to a separate patch. Fixes generally should >>>>> be separated from the rest of the changes. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks Dmitry for your review. >>>> >>>> Sure, will separate this into a separate patch in next series. >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> properties: >>>>>> compatible: >>>>>> enum: >>>>>> - qcom,sm8450-videocc >>>>>> - qcom,sm8550-videocc >>>>>> + - qcom,sm8650-videocc >>>>>> >>>>>> reg: >>>>>> maxItems: 1 >>>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.h >>>>>> b/include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.h >>>>>> index 9d795adfe4eb..ecfebe52e4bb 100644 >>>>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.h >>>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.h >>>>>> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ >>>>>> /* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) */ >>>>>> /* >>>>>> - * Copyright (c) 2023, Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All rights >>>>>> reserved. >>>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2023-2024, Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. All >>>>>> rights reserved. >>>>>> */ >>>>>> >>>>>> #ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_CLK_QCOM_VIDEO_CC_SM8450_H >>>>>> @@ -19,6 +19,11 @@ >>>>>> #define >>>>>> VIDEO_CC_MVS1C_DIV2_DIV_CLK_SRC 9 >>>>>> #define VIDEO_CC_PLL0 10 >>>>>> #define VIDEO_CC_PLL1 11 >>>>>> +#define >>>>>> VIDEO_CC_MVS0_SHIFT_CLK 12 >>>>>> +#define VIDEO_CC_MVS0C_SHIFT_CLK 13 >>>>>> +#define >>>>>> VIDEO_CC_MVS1_SHIFT_CLK 14 >>>>>> +#define VIDEO_CC_MVS1C_SHIFT_CLK 15 >>>>>> +#define VIDEO_CC_XO_CLK_SRC 16 >>>>> >>>>> Are these values applicable to sm8450? >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, the shift clocks above are part of SM8650 only. To reuse the >>>> existing SM8550 videocc driver for SM8650 and to register these shift >>>> clocks for SM8650, I added them here. >>>> >>> >>> In such case I'd strongly suggest to add a new qcom,sm8650-videocc.h >>> file, >>> and do #include qcom,sm8450-videocc.h in it, thus the new header will be >>> really a short one. >>> >>> This will add pristine clarity. >>> >> >> Thanks Vladimir for your suggestion. I believe adding a comment for >> these set of clocks should be sufficient to indicate these clocks are >> applicable only for SM8650, I can add the required comment and post the >> next series. Please let me know if this works? > > Well, I didn't get any new information to abandon my suggestion, what is > wrong with it or why is it less preferable? > > Even if you add a comment in the header file, it means that for SM8450 > platforms you'll begin to define inapplicable/unrelated macro for the > platform, which opens a small risk of the misusage, and which can be > easily avoided. I believe that the clarity is better for maintenance. >
Yes, I agree. Will check and move these new clocks to a separate header file in next series. Thanks!
Thanks, Jagadeesh
| |