Re: [GIT PULL] DT clk binding support

[Saravana Kannan]

On 05/23/2012 06:59 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 05/22/2012 08:38 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> > On Tue, May 22, 2012 6:52 am, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On 05/21/2012 11:17 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > On 05/21/12 19:15, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 06:52:37PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > > > As Grant states: "This proposed binding is only about one thing:
> > > > > > attaching clock providers to clock consumers." This means you have to
> > > > > > have at least a single provider and a single consumer defined in the
> > > > > > DT.
> > > > > I just read through Grant's comments over again.  I agree with the
> > > > > statement which implicitly requires the clk provider defined in DT.
> > > > > However, for some case, this provider in DT is just a skeleton which
> > > > > is backed by clock driver where the provider is actually defined.
> > > > >
> > > > > Looking at Grant's comment below, the second option is also to match
> > > > > the clock in driver just using name.  The only difference to my
> > > > > proposal is the name here is given by the argument of phandle pointing
> > > > > to that skeleton provider node.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm fine with that.  So go ahead with your bindings.
> > > >
> > > > Can we do what the regulator framework has done and have a common
> > > > binding of<connection_name>-clk =<&phandle>? Something like:
> > > >
> > > >      core-clk =<&uart3_clk>
> > > >
> > > > and then have clk_get() use the of node of the device passed in to find
> > > > a property named %s-clk and find the clock with the matching phandle.
> > >
> > > Sigh... That is what we had in previous versions from over a year ago
> > > and we moved away from that approach. The current binding has been
> > > reviewed multiple times in the last 6 months...
> > >
> > > The current approach is aligned with how interrupts are handled (with
> > > the addition of a phandle). I think not having per clock property names
> > > is easier to parse and easier to document.
> > >
> > > > This looks like it's trying to cover both the end consumers (uart uses
> > > > uart3_clk) and the internal clock tree consumers (a crystal oscillator
> > > > connects to a PLL or a mux has multiple parents). We can certainly use
> > > > these bindings for muxes and internal parent-child relationships but I
> > > > would prefer we use different bindings for consumer bindings that match
> > > > what regulators do today.
> > >
> > > The binding supports either defining every last internal clock or just
> > > the leaf clocks. I took the former route on highbank since I don't have
> > > a lot of clocks. If I was doing imx or omap for example, I'd probably
> > > just define all the clock controller outputs.
> >
> > If only the leaf nodes are defined in DT, then how is the clock platform
> > driver implementer supposed to instantiate the rest of the tree and
> > connect it up with the partial list of clocks in DT? So, they have to
> > switch back and forth between DT and the .c file which defines the rest
> > and make sure the parent<->child names match?
> >
> > To me it looks that it might better to decouple the description of the
> > clock HW from the mapping of a clock leaf to a consumer device. If we just
> > use a string to identify the clock that's consumed by a device, we can
> > achieve this decoupling at a clean boundary -- clock consumers devices
> > (UART) vs clock producer devices (clock controller in the SoC, in a PMIC,
> > audio codec, etc).
> >
> > With the decoupling, we don't have the inconsistency of having some of the
> > clocks of a clock producer device incompletely defined in DT and the rest
> > of the clocks of the same clock producer device hard coded in the kernel.
> > So, you either put your entire clock tree in the SoC in the DT or put all
> > of it in the kernel but you aren't forced to put just some of them in the
> > DT just to get DT working. I see no benefit in defining only some of the
> > clocks in DT -- it just adds more confusion in the clock tree definition.
> > What am I missing?
>
> I fail to see what would need changing in the binding itself. The
> binding just describes connections. Whether that is a connection to a
> clock controller node to a device or a clock gate/mux/divider node to a
> device is really beyond the clock binding. This is really just policy.
> You are free to put no clocks in DT, all clocks, or a nexus of clocks.

With the current approach you are taking can you please give an example 
of how a random device described in DT would hook itself up with a leaf 
clock if that leaf clock is not described in DT? So that it can do a 
call a DT version of clk_get() to get the clock it cares for.

And no, there is a huge difference between binding a clock controller 
node (by which I mean the block that provides many clocks) to a device 
vs. binding a clock leaf to a device. The former is useless wrt to 
clk_get() and similar functions. The latter is very useful to handle that.

Thanks,
Saravana


--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/