[PATCH v2 06/14] arm64: dts: qcom: sdm630: Drop RPM bus clocks

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 14.09.2023 08:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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?
Yes

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.
Actually, looks like the LPASS smmu may require a single
clock. We can reuse that single-"bus"-clock entry for
HLOS1_VOTE_LPASS_ADSP_SMMU_CLK.

The device didn't crash when trying to access LPASS SMMU
with that clock absent, but I guess it may have just
been luck, things may change once more hardware is parked..

Konrad