[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c05a9a02-0a33-6160-9072-717efe30031a@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2023 01:18:13 +0300
From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
To: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@...ainline.org>,
Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, robdclark@...il.com,
quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com, sean@...rly.run, airlied@...il.com,
daniel@...ll.ch, robh+dt@...nel.org, dianders@...omium.org,
david@...t.cz, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
swboyd@...omium.org, konrad.dybcio@...ainline.org,
agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/2] dt-bindings: msm: dsi-controller-main: Document
clocks on a per compatible basis
On 22/06/2023 00:45, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 2023-01-18 17:16:21, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>> Each compatible has a different set of clocks which are associated with it.
>> Add in the list of clocks for each compatible.
>
> So if each set of compatibles have their own unique set of clocks, is
> there a reason to have so many duplicate then: blocks? I ran into this
> while preparing for submitting SM6125 DPU and having no clue where to
> add it.
>
>> Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
>> Acked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>
>> ---
>> .../display/msm/dsi-controller-main.yaml | 218 ++++++++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 201 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
[skipped most of the comments]
>
>> +
>> + - if:
>> + properties:
>> + compatible:
>> + contains:
>> + enum:
>> + - qcom,sc7180-dsi-ctrl
>> + - qcom,sc7280-dsi-ctrl
>> + - qcom,sm8250-dsi-ctrl
>> + - qcom,sm8150-dsi-ctrl
>> + - qcom,sm8250-dsi-ctrl
>> + - qcom,sm8350-dsi-ctrl
>> + - qcom,sm8450-dsi-ctrl
>> + - qcom,sm8550-dsi-ctrl
>> + then:
>> + properties:
>> + clocks:
>> + maxItems: 6
>> + clock-names:
>> + items:
>> + - const: byte
>> + - const: byte_intf
>> + - const: pixel
>> + - const: core
>> + - const: iface
>> + - const: bus
>
> ... and here ...
>
>> +
>> + - if:
>> + properties:
>> + compatible:
>> + contains:
>> + enum:
>> + - qcom,sdm660-dsi-ctrl
>> + then:
>> + properties:
>> + clocks:
>> + maxItems: 9
>> + clock-names:
>> + items:
>> + - const: mdp_core
>> + - const: byte
>> + - const: byte_intf
>> + - const: mnoc
>> + - const: iface
>> + - const: bus
>> + - const: core_mmss
>> + - const: pixel
>> + - const: core
>> +
>> + - if:
>> + properties:
>> + compatible:
>> + contains:
>> + enum:
>> + - qcom,sdm845-dsi-ctrl
>> + then:
>> + properties:
>> + clocks:
>> + maxItems: 6
>> + clock-names:
>> + items:
>> + - const: byte
>> + - const: byte_intf
>> + - const: pixel
>> + - const: core
>> + - const: iface
>> + - const: bus
>
> and here, we have *three* identical lists of clocks. Should they (have
> been) combined?
>
> I can send a patch fixing these all if desired!
Probably it would be logical to split follow DPU and MDSS schema and
split this file into per-SoC compatibles and a generic file. Then it
would be easier to review different SoC parts.
Regarding reordering of clocks. I think we have 5 different
configurations in dsi_cfg.c, but we definitely can optimize the schema.
>
> - Marijn
>
>> +
>> additionalProperties: false
>>
>> examples:
>> --
>> 2.38.1
>>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists