[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c34157c5-cd13-4e85-a9ee-22446111f633@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 17:45:32 +0530
From: Sebin Francis <sebin.francis@...com>
To: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@....com>,
Marco Felsch
<m.felsch@...gutronix.de>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Brian Masney
<bmasney@...hat.com>,
Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>
CC: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
"linux-clk@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org"
<arm-scmi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] clk: scmi: Support Spread Spectrum for NXP i.MX95
Hi Peng,
On 24/09/25 17:13, Peng Fan wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/5] clk: scmi: Support Spread Spectrum for
>> NXP i.MX95
> ...
>>>>> SCMI_CLOCK_CFG_OEM_START = 0x80,
>>>>> + SCMI_CLOCK_CFG_IMX_SSC = 0x80,
>>>>
>>>> TI is also planning to implement the same in our upcoming platform.
>>>> so can we use a generic ID instead of vender specfic message ID?
>>>
>>> I tried to push to new generic ID [1] in half a year ago, but in the
>>> end ARM decided not to add generic ID for spread spectrum support.
>>>
>>> To i.MX, it is too late to use a generic ID and waiting spec, i.MX
>>> firmware has been public for quite some time and passed several
>> external releases.
>>> So I need to use what our firmware adds and spec allows: vendor
>>> extension.
>>
>> Thanks for the quick response,
>> Since this implementation is specific to i.MX, can you move this to a
>> vendor specific file, so that it will not break i.MX's firmware and TI can
>> implement SSC in TI specific file.
>
> i.MX has encountered issue with pinctrl-scmi.c and pinctrl-imx-scmi.c
> both supports SCMI PINCTRL. Current linux scmi does not support
> both drivers built in kernel image, because scmi devlink issue.
>
> Sudeep said he would address the devlink issue in 6.19 cycle.
>
> Given the current situation, I'm hesitant to introduce a new driver
> saying clk-imx-scmi.c.
>
> What I'm unclear about is whether moving to a vendor-specific file
> implies creating a new driver (i.e., clk-imx-scmi.c), or if it could be
> handled via a callback or another mechanism. Could you help
> clarify the intended direction?
My intended was to handle it via callback or something similar, so that
TI can its own callback for the TI's SSC implementation.
>
> Sudeep, Cristian
>
> Would you please jump in and say something?
>
> Thanks,
> Peng.
>
>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2F
>> lore
>>> .kernel.org%2Farm-
>> scmi%2FZ8iKErarE0lHWxEy%40pluto%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cpe
>>>
>> ng.fan%40nxp.com%7C4bd4c6b93ff146fbfc4c08ddfb4c5ab5%7C686ea
>> 1d3bc2b4c6f
>>>
>> a92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C638943027585856649%7CUnknow
>> n%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8
>>>
>> eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiI
>> sIkFOIjoiTW
>>>
>> FpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=zEREeXuiaC5wWS
>> C%2FUAIe6wfiTf
>>> MG5AEY5vZ7D4OEIGI%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Peng.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Sebin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists