[PATCH 2/4] hwrng: stm32 - implement support for STM32MP25x platforms

[Marek Vasut]

On 10/11/24 5:51 PM, Gatien CHEVALLIER wrote:
> 
> 
> On 10/11/24 14:38, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 10/11/24 2:07 PM, Gatien CHEVALLIER wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/11/24 13:24, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/24 11:55 AM, Gatien CHEVALLIER wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/7/24 15:54, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/7/24 3:27 PM, Gatien Chevallier wrote:
>>>>>>> Implement the support for STM32MP25x platforms. On this platform, a
>>>>>>> security clock is shared between some hardware blocks. For the RNG,
>>>>>>> it is the RNG kernel clock. Therefore, the gate is no more shared
>>>>>>> between the RNG bus and kernel clocks as on STM32MP1x platforms and
>>>>>>> the bus clock has to be managed on its own.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gatien Chevallier <gatien.chevallier at foss.st.com>
>>>>>> A bit of a higher-level design question -- can you use drivers/ 
>>>>>> clk/ clk-bulk.c clk_bulk_*() to handle all these disparate count 
>>>>>> of clock easily ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, I'd like to make sure that we enable the core clock before the bus
>>>>> clock so that the RNG hardware block can start its internal tests 
>>>>> while
>>>>> we ungate the bus clock. It's not a strong opinion but it feels 
>>>>> better.
>>>> Maybe this could still work if the struct clk_bulk_data {} is 
>>>> ordered that way, so the bus clock are first, and the rest afterward ?
>>>
>>> I guess you meant, the core first.
>>
>> Err, yes, core.
>>
>>> Putting the bus clock first with the updated YAML doc generates a
>>> warning when checking the bindings. I guess what you propose is OK
>>> then. Core clock is defined first in the device tree.
>>
>> Not in DT, leave DT as-is. Look at struct clk_bulk_data , I think when 
>> you use the clk_bulk_*() functions, you pass in a list of struct 
>> clk_bulk_data, which each describes one clock, so just make sure that 
>> list of struct clk_bulk_data in the driver is ordered the way you need 
>> it to be ordered and you should be fine.
> 
> I've sent a V2 with something that is functional but not aesthetic.
> You'll tell me if that's what you had in mind.
I sent you a slightly tweaked example which should work too and should 
be a bit nicer.