linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: move board clocks to DTS files

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e9a3179e-858c-43e8-ada4-942517dc1971@kernel.org>
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 18:02:06 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
 Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
 Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: move board clocks to
 DTS files

On 15/11/2024 07:59, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> SM8650 is one of the platforms where board-level clocks (XO, sleep)
> definitions are split between the SoC dtsi file and the board file.
> This is not correct, as these two clocks are not a part of the SoC. Also
> such definitions don't fully follow the DT guidelines. Move these two
> clocks to the board files completely.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650-hdk.dts | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650-mtp.dts | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650-qrd.dts | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650.dtsi    | 10 ----------
>  4 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650-hdk.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650-hdk.dts
> index f00bdff4280af22f6f8b23e33238f53c602bc169..641bd817d75439bc6a050189565437e1c5ead3b5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650-hdk.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650-hdk.dts
> @@ -30,6 +30,20 @@ chosen {
>  		stdout-path = "serial0:115200n8";
>  	};
>  
> +	clocks {
> +		xo_board: xo-board {
> +			compatible = "fixed-clock";
> +			#clock-cells = <0>;
> +			clock-frequency = <76800000>;
> +		};
> +
> +		sleep_clk: sleep-clk {
> +			compatible = "fixed-clock";
> +			#clock-cells = <0>;
> +			clock-frequency = <32000>;
> +		};
> +	};
> +
>  	hdmi-out {
>  		compatible = "hdmi-connector";
>  		type = "a";
> @@ -1112,10 +1126,6 @@ &sdhc_2 {
>  	status = "okay";
>  };
>  
> -&sleep_clk {
> -	clock-frequency = <32000>;
> -};

No, code has correct style. To avoid duplication, the SoC DTSI keeps the
skeleton of the clock, which also indicates that SoC expects it to be
provided by board. Then the board provides the clock by setting the
frequency.

Best regards,
Krzysztof