[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87192098-b7f4-060f-9274-933d974c0a7d@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 15:29:36 +0000
From: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
To: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@...hold.net>
Cc: agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org, konrad.dybcio@...aro.org,
djakov@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, benl@...areup.com,
shawn.guo@...aro.org, fabien.parent@...aro.org, leo.yan@...aro.org,
dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Add MSM8939 SoC support with two devices
On 23/01/2023 12:49, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
>> - Adds gcc dsi1pll and dsi1pllbyte to gcc clock list.
>> Reviewing the silicon documentation we see dsi0_phy_pll is used to clock
>> GCC_BYTE1_CFG_RCGR : SRC_SEL
>> Root Source Select
>> 000 : cxo
>> 001 : dsi0_phy_pll_out_byteclk
>> 010 : GPLL0_OUT_AUX
>> 011 : gnd
>> 100 : gnd
>> 101 : gnd
>> 110 : gnd
>> 111 : reserved - Stephan/Bryan
>>
> I'm confused. Are you not contradicting yourself here? You say that
> dsi0_phy_pll (dsi ZERO) is used to clock GCC_BYTE1_CFG_RCGR. Then why
> do you add dsi1_phy_pll (dsi ONE) to the gcc clock list?
So my understanding of the clock tree here is that
dsi0_phy_pll_out_byteclk is a legacy name.
Its perfectly possible to have DSI0 and DSI0_PHY switched off and to
have DSI1/DSI1_PHY operable.
dsi0_phy_pll_out_byteclk is perhaps an unfortunate name and probably
should have been renamed.
> To me this looks like a confirmation of what downstream does, that both
> DSI byte clocks are actually sourced from the dsi0_phy and the PLL of
A better name would have been dsiX_phy_pll_out_byteclk.
---
bod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists