Message-ID: <4906b7e2-0ddb-4d3c-a48b-e16278f2d649@microchip.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 05:18:26 +0000
From: <Dharma.B@...rochip.com>
To: <conor@...nel.org>
CC: <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>, <sam@...nborg.org>, <bbrezillon@...nel.org>,
	<maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, <mripard@...nel.org>,
	<tzimmermann@...e.de>, <airlied@...il.com>, <daniel@...ll.ch>,
	<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	<conor+dt@...nel.org>, <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>,
	<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>,
	<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<lee@...nel.org>, <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
	<Linux4Microchip@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] dt-bindings: mfd: atmel,hlcdc: Convert to DT
 schema format

Hi Conor & All,

On 22/01/24 2:46 pm, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 03:38:41AM +0000,Dharma.B@...rochip.com  wrote:
>> Hi Conor,
>> On 19/01/24 5:33 pm, Conor Dooley - M52691 wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 03:32:49AM +0000,Dharma.B@...rochip.com  wrote:
>>>> On 18/01/24 9:10 pm, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2024 at 02:56:12PM +0530, Dharma Balasubiramani wrote:
>>>>>> Convert the atmel,hlcdc binding to DT schema format.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adjust the clock-names property to clarify that the LCD controller expects
>>>>>> one of these clocks (either sys_clk or lvds_pll_clk to be present but not
>>>>>> both) along with the slow_clk and periph_clk. This alignment with the actual
>>>>>> hardware requirements will enable accurate device tree configuration for
>>>>>> systems using the HLCDC IP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dharma Balasubiramani<dharma.b@...rochip.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> changelog
>>>>>> v2 -> v3
>>>>>> - Rename hlcdc-display-controller and hlcdc-pwm to generic names.
>>>>>> - Modify the description by removing the unwanted comments and '|'.
>>>>>> - Modify clock-names simpler.
>>>>>> v1 -> v2
>>>>>> - Remove the explicit copyrights.
>>>>>> - Modify title (not include words like binding/driver).
>>>>>> - Modify description actually describing the hardware and not the driver.
>>>>>> - Add details of lvds_pll addition in commit message.
>>>>>> - Ref endpoint and not endpoint-base.
>>>>>> - Fix coding style.
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>     .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel,hlcdc.yaml  | 97 +++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>     .../devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel-hlcdc.txt   | 56 -----------
>>>>>>     2 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
>>>>>>     create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel,hlcdc.yaml
>>>>>>     delete mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel-hlcdc.txt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel,hlcdc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel,hlcdc.yaml
>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 000000000000..eccc998ac42c
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/atmel,hlcdc.yaml
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
>>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
>>>>>> +%YAML 1.2
>>>>>> +---
>>>>>> +$id:http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/atmel,hlcdc.yaml#
>>>>>> +$schema:http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +title: Atmel's HLCD Controller
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +maintainers:
>>>>>> +  - Nicolas Ferre<nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
>>>>>> +  - Alexandre Belloni<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
>>>>>> +  - Claudiu Beznea<claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +description:
>>>>>> +  The Atmel HLCDC (HLCD Controller) IP available on Atmel SoCs exposes two
>>>>>> +  subdevices, a PWM chip and a Display Controller.
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +properties:
>>>>>> +  compatible:
>>>>>> +    enum:
>>>>>> +      - atmel,at91sam9n12-hlcdc
>>>>>> +      - atmel,at91sam9x5-hlcdc
>>>>>> +      - atmel,sama5d2-hlcdc
>>>>>> +      - atmel,sama5d3-hlcdc
>>>>>> +      - atmel,sama5d4-hlcdc
>>>>>> +      - microchip,sam9x60-hlcdc
>>>>>> +      - microchip,sam9x75-xlcdc
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +  reg:
>>>>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +  interrupts:
>>>>>> +    maxItems: 1
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +  clocks:
>>>>>> +    maxItems: 3
>>>>> Hmm, one thing I probably should have said on the previous version, but
>>>>> I missed somehow: It would be good to add an items list to the clocks
>>>>> property here to explain what the 3 clocks are/are used for - especially
>>>>> since there is additional complexity being added here to use either the
>>>>> sys or lvds clocks.
>>>> May I inquire if this approach is likely to be effective?
>>>>
>>>>      clocks:
>>>>        items:
>>>>          - description: peripheral clock
>>>>          - description: generic clock or lvds pll clock
>>>>              Once the LVDS PLL is enabled, the pixel clock is used as the
>>>>              clock for LCDC, so its GCLK is no longer needed.
>>>>          - description: slow clock
>>>>        maxItems: 3
>>> Hmm that sounds very suspect to me. "Once the lvdspll is enabled the
>>> generic clock is no longer needed" sounds like both clocks can be provided
>>> to the IP on different pins and their provision is not mutually
>>> exclusive, just that the IP will only actually use one at a time. If
>>> that is the case, then this patch is nott correct and the binding should
>>> allow for 4 clocks, with both the generic clock and the lvds pll being
>>> present in the DT at the same time.
>>>
>>> I vaguely recall internal discussion about this problem some time back
>>> but the details all escape me.
>> Let's delve deeper into the clock configuration for LCDC_PCK.
>>
>> Considering the flexibility of the design, it appears that both clocks,
>> sys_clk (generic clock) and lvds_pll_clk, can indeed be provided to the
>> IP simultaneously. The crucial aspect, however, is that the IP will
>> utilize only one of these clocks at any given time. This aligns with the
>> specific requirements of the application, where the choice of clock
>> depends on whether the LVDS interface or MIPI/DSI is in use.
> If both clocks can physically be provided to the IP then both of them
> should be in the dt. The hcldc appears to me to be a part of the SoC and
> the clock routing to the IP is likely fixed.
> 
>> To ensure proper configuration of the pixel clock period, we need to
>> distinctly identify which clocks are being utilized. For instance, in
>> the LVDS interface scenario, the lvds_pll_clk is essential, resulting in
>> LCDC_PCK being set to the source clock. Conversely, in the MIPI/DSI
>> case, the LCDC GCLK is required, leading to LCDC_PCK being defined as
>> source clock/CLKDIV+2.
>>
>> Considering the potential coexistence of sys_clk and lvds_pll_clk in the
>> Device Tree (DT), we may need to introduce an additional flag in the DT.
>> This flag could serve as a clear indicator of whether the LVDS interface
>> or MIPI/DSI is being employed. As we discussed to drop this flag and
>> just have any one of the clocks I believe that this approach provides a
>> sensible and scalable solution, allowing for a comprehensive
>> representation of the clocking configuration.
> This is probably a question for the folks on the DRM or media side of
> things, but is it not possible to determine based on the endpoint what
> protocol is required?
> I know that on the media side of things there's an endpoint property
> that can be used to specific the bus-type - is there an equivalent
> property for DRM stuff?

Yes, it can be done.
I will have the lvds pll in the lvds DT node.
I will just convert the existing text binding to yaml without this 
additonal lvds pll clock.

-- 
Thanks,
Dharma B.
> 
> Cheers,
> Conor.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists