Re: [PATCH v8 02/20] PM / devfreq: exynos: Add documentation for generic exynos bus frequency driver

[Chanwoo Choi]

Hi Rob,

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 01:24:51PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> This patch adds the documentation for generic exynos bus frequency
>> driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  .../devicetree/bindings/devfreq/exynos-bus.txt     | 95 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 95 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/devfreq/exynos-bus.txt
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/devfreq/exynos-bus.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/devfreq/exynos-bus.txt
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..78171b918e3f
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/devfreq/exynos-bus.txt
>> @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
>> +* Generic Exynos Bus frequency device
>> +
>> +The Samsung Exynos SoC has many buses for data transfer between DRAM
>> +and sub-blocks in SoC. Most Exynos SoCs share the common architecture
>> +for buses. Generally, each bus of Exynos SoC includes a source clock
>> +and a power line, which are able to change the clock frequency
>> +of the bus in runtime. To monitor the usage of each bus in runtime,
>> +the driver uses the PPMU (Platform Performance Monitoring Unit), which
>> +is able to measure the current load of sub-blocks.
>> +
>> +There are a little different composition among Exynos SoC because each Exynos
>> +SoC has different sub-blocks. Therefore, shch difference should be specified
>> +in devicetree file instead of each device driver. In result, this driver
>> +is able to support the bus frequency for all Exynos SoCs.
>
> I still have issues with this whole series. The DT hierarchy represents
> buses. You are describing buses here and control of them. I would expect
> to see some hierarchy, but there is none. What this looks like is you
> are adding nodes based on what fits the current driver.

I already replied[1] about your same question on v2 patchset four 4 months ago.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/10/943

I attach the your question and my reply history as following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Discussion between you and me on v2 patchset[1] ]
>>>
>>> This still has the same problem as before. I would expect that the bus
>>> hierarchy in the dts match the hierarchy here. You just have flat nodes
>>> in the example below. So all IP blocks affected by frequency scaling
>>> should be under the bus node defining the OPPs. Something like this:
>>
>> The each bus of sub-block has not h/w dependency among sub-blocks
>> and has the owned source clock / OPP table. Just they share the same
>> power line. So, I think that flat nodes in the example below is not problem.
>
> I'm talking about the peripherals not described here. Is the ISP block
> not a child of the bus_isp node? Same for the display controller block
> and bus_lcd0. And so on.

>From the H/W point of view, ISP block is really not included in ISP's
AXI bus (bus_isp).
Just, the bus_isp connect to between ISP block and DRAM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks,
Chanwoo Choi