[PATCH v2 06/14] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm630: Drop RPM bus clocks
Krzysztof Kozlowski
krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org
Wed Sep 13 23:26:42 PDT 2023
On 13/09/2023 14:08, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 13.09.2023 09:13, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 12/09/2023 15:31, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>> These clocks are now handled from within the icc framework and are
>>> no longer registered from within the CCF. Remove them.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio at linaro.org>
>>> ---
> [...]
>
>>> anoc2_smmu: iommu at 16c0000 {
>>> compatible = "qcom,sdm630-smmu-v2", "qcom,smmu-v2";
>>> reg = <0x016c0000 0x40000>;
>>> -
>>> - assigned-clocks = <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_AGGR2_NOC_CLK>;
>>> - assigned-clock-rates = <1000>;
>>> - clocks = <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_AGGR2_NOC_CLK>;
>>> - clock-names = "bus";
>>
>> This is also against bindings. After your patch #4, such bus clock (or
>> other combinations) is still required.
> So, we have 4 SMMU instances on this platform:
>
> MMSS (described, iface, mem, mem_iface)
> GPU (described, iface-mm, iface-smmu, bus-smmu)
>
> ANOC2 (this one, no clocks after removing rpmcc bus)
> LPASS (no clocks)
Ah, I did not notice it.
>
> Should I then create a new entry in the bindings, replicating
> what's there for msm8998[1] and dropping the entry with just "bus"
> from anyOf?
So this passes the bindings, right? anyOf: in the binding should allow
also no match, so this should be fine. However indeed we need to drop
the "bus" entry, because it is not valid anymore.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list