linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/11] dt-bindings: display: rockchip,inno-hdmi: Document RK3128 compatible

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6df9fb93-85cf-4c03-b0cd-781d4f42db30@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 17:26:32 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Alex Bee <knaerzche@...il.com>,
        Sandy Huang <hjc@...k-chips.com>, Andy Yan <andyshrk@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
        Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>
Cc:     David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] dt-bindings: display: rockchip,inno-hdmi: Document
 RK3128 compatible

On 14/12/2023 17:20, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 14. Dezember 2023, 17:07:27 CET schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>> On 14/12/2023 16:22, Alex Bee wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 14.12.23 um 08:53 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>>>> On 13/12/2023 20:51, Alex Bee wrote:
>>>>> Document the compatible for RK3128's HDMI controller block.
>>>>> The integration for this SoC is somewhat different here: It needs the PHY's
>>>> Please wrap commit message according to Linux coding style / submission
>>>> process (neither too early nor over the limit):
>>>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L597
>>> OK. Not sure why checkpatch --strict  didn't tell me that I'm over the 
>>> limit here.
>>>>
>>>>> reference clock rate to calculate the ddc bus frequency correctly. This
>>>>> clock is part of a power-domain (PD_VIO), so this gets added as an optional
>>>>> property too.
>>>> If clock is part of power domain, then the power domain must be in the
>>>> clock controller, not here. So either you put power domain in wrong
>>>> place or you used incorrect reason for a change.
>>>   Rockchip defines it's powerdomains per clock and I was little to much 
>>> in that world when writing this. Actually the controller itself is part 
>>> of the powerdomain. Will rephrase.
>>
>> Does it mean you have like 200 different power domains in one SoC? Then
>> how are they different than clock if there is one-to-one mapping?
> 
> It's more like the other way around. Controllers and their clocks belong
> to specific power-domains. So there are of course more clocks than domains.

That's fine and expected. Here the comment was suggested that you need
to add power-domain because clock is in power-domain. That would be
clearly wrong and instead the clock controller should model the power
domain relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Best regards,
Krzysztof