[PATCH V5 1/4] clk: meson: S4: add support for Amlogic S4 SoC PLL clock driver and bindings
Jerome Brunet
jbrunet at baylibre.com
Mon Nov 28 04:33:47 PST 2022
On Mon 28 Nov 2022 at 15:39, Yu Tu <yu.tu at amlogic.com> wrote:
> Hi Jerome,
> Thank you for your reply.
>
> On 2022/11/25 17:23, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>> On Wed 23 Nov 2022 at 14:53, Krzysztof Kozlowski
>> <krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/11/2022 14:23, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 23/11/2022 12:16, Yu Tu wrote:
>>>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>>> Thank you for your reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2022/11/23 18:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>>> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23/11/2022 03:13, Yu Tu wrote:
>>>>>>> Add the S4 PLL clock controller found and bindings in the s4 SoC family.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Tu <yu.tu at amlogic.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> .../bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml | 51 +
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is v5 and still bindings are here? Bindings are always separate
>>>>>> patches. Use subject prefixes matching the subsystem (git log --oneline
>>>>>> -- ...).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this was split, wasn't it? What happened here?!?
>>>>>
>>>>> Put bindings and clock driver patch together from Jerome. Maybe you can read this chat history.
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.or/all/1jy1v6z14n.fsf@starbuckisacylon.baylibre.com/
>>>>
>>>> Jerome was asking you to send 2 patchsets, one with :
>>>> - bindings in separate patches
>>>> - drivers in separate patches
>>>> and a second with DT changes.
>> Indeed, this is what was asked. It is aligned with Krzysztof's request.
>
> According to your discussion, I still should send patches in the previous
> way in series. But I'm going to change it like you suggested.
> I don't know, am I getting it right?
3 people tried to explain this already and we all told you the same thing.
* 1 patchset per maintainer: clk and dt
* bindings must be dedicated patches - never mixed with driver code.
I strongly suggest that you take some time to (re)read:
* https://docs.kernel.org/process/submitting-patches.html
* https://docs.kernel.org/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.html
If still unclear, please take some time to look at the kernel mailing
list archive and see how others have done the same things.
Thx.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Then when the bindings + clocks patches are merged, a pull request of the bindings
>>>> can be done to me so I can merge it with DT.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MAINTAINERS | 1 +
>>>>>>> drivers/clk/meson/Kconfig | 13 +
>>>>>>> drivers/clk/meson/Makefile | 1 +
>>>>>>> drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.c | 875 ++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>> drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.h | 88 ++
>>>>>>> .../dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.h | 30 +
>>>>>>> 7 files changed, 1059 insertions(+)
>>>>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml
>>>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.c
>>>>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/clk/meson/s4-pll.h
>>>>>>> create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.h
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml
>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>> index 000000000000..fd517e8ef14f
>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml
>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
>>>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>>>>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>>>>>> +---
>>>>>>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.yaml#
>>>>>>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +title: Amlogic Meson S serials PLL Clock Controller
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +maintainers:
>>>>>>> + - Neil Armstrong <narmstrong at baylibre.com>
>>>>>>> + - Jerome Brunet <jbrunet at baylibre.com>
>>>>>>> + - Yu Tu <yu.hu at amlogic.com>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>> One blank line.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will delete this, on next version patch.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +properties:
>>>>>>> + compatible:
>>>>>>> + const: amlogic,s4-pll-clkc
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + reg:
>>>>>>> + maxItems: 1
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + clocks:
>>>>>>> + maxItems: 1
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + clock-names:
>>>>>>> + items:
>>>>>>> + - const: xtal
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + "#clock-cells":
>>>>>>> + const: 1
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +required:
>>>>>>> + - compatible
>>>>>>> + - reg
>>>>>>> + - clocks
>>>>>>> + - clock-names
>>>>>>> + - "#clock-cells"
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +additionalProperties: false
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +examples:
>>>>>>> + - |
>>>>>>> + clkc_pll: clock-controller at fe008000 {
>>>>>>> + compatible = "amlogic,s4-pll-clkc";
>>>>>>> + reg = <0xfe008000 0x1e8>;
>>>>>>> + clocks = <&xtal>;
>>>>>>> + clock-names = "xtal";
>>>>>>> + #clock-cells = <1>;
>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +#endif /* __MESON_S4_PLL_H__ */
>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.h b/include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.h
>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>>> index 000000000000..345f87023886
>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/amlogic,s4-pll-clkc.h
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This belongs to bindings patch, not driver.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
>>>>>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) */
>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2021 Amlogic, Inc. All rights reserved.
>>>>>>> + * Author: Yu Tu <yu.tu at amlogic.com>
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +#ifndef _DT_BINDINGS_CLOCK_AMLOGIC_S4_PLL_CLKC_H
>>>>>>> +#define _DT_BINDINGS_CLOCK_AMLOGIC_S4_PLL_CLKC_H
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>> + * CLKID index values
>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +#define CLKID_FIXED_PLL 1
>>>>>>> +#define CLKID_FCLK_DIV2 3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indexes start from 0 and are incremented by 1. Not by 2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NAK.
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember Jerome discussing this with you.You can look at this submission history.
>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/c088e01c-0714-82be-8347-6140daf56640@linaro.org/
>>>>
>>>> Historically we did that by only exposing part of the numbers, controlling which
>>>> clocks were part of the bindings.
>>>>
>>>> But it seems this doesn't make sens anymore, maybe it would be time to put all the
>>>> clock ids in the bindings for this new SoC and break with the previous strategy.
>> Krzysztof and I agreed there is nothing wrong with the current
>> approach, I believe.
>> It does not prevent someone from using an un-exposed clock, sure, or
>> exposing it in the future if necessary.
>> However, I think it clearly shows that an un-exposed element is not
>> expected to be used by an external consumers. It should be enough to
>> trigger a discussion if this expectation is wrong.
>>
>>>
>>> So the outcome of the previous discussion was somewhere later in that
>>> thread:
>>>
>>>> It is just a choice to not expose some IDs.
>>>> It is not tied to the implementation at all.
>>>> I think we actually follow the rules and the idea behind it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Krzysztof
>> .
More information about the linux-amlogic
mailing list