Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: rockchip: Fix clocks for rk356x usb

[Heiko Stuebner]

Am Samstag, 9. April 2022, 13:30:44 CEST schrieb Peter Geis:
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 7:14 AM Peter Geis <pgwipeout@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 9, 2022 at 7:01 AM Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Am Samstag, 9. April 2022, 12:57:39 CEST schrieb Frank Wunderlich:
> > > > Hi
> > > > > Gesendet: Samstag, 09. April 2022 um 12:40 Uhr
> > > > > Von: "Dan Johansen" <strit@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > > So the issue is only with usb 3 ports, not usb 2 ports?
> > > >
> > > > my board has no standalone usb2-ports. usb2 is integrated into the usb3 ports (dual phy). here both were not working.
> > > >
> > > > afaik rk3566 has standalone usb2 ports that may not be broken, but i have no such board for testing.
> >
> > Good Morning,
> >
> > >
> > > As far as I understand the issue now after checking the code, this
> > > patch actually fixes the usb3 series from Peter, right?
> > >
> > > I.e. the usb-nodes that are fixed in this patch are not yet present
> > > in the main rk356x dtsi and only get added in
> > > "arm64: dts: rockchip: add rk356x dwc3 usb3 nodes" [0]
> > >
> > > As we don't want to add broken changes, this fix should squashed
> > > into a next version of the patch adding the nodes.
> >
> > Thank you for reporting this, I will squash this fix in and add your signed-off.
> >
> > However the offending patch is in fact the clock separation patch, and
> > it breaks backwards compatibility with the rk3328 dtsi which is why my
> > series also is broken.
> >
> > The rockchip,dwc3.yaml needs to be fixed to align with the
> > snps,dwc3.yaml, and both the rk3328 and rk3399 clock names updated.
> > Also the offending clock separation patch needs a fix to grab the old
> > clock names for rk3328 backwards compatibility to be retained.
> >
> > This might also be a good time to look into moving rk3399 to the core
> > dwc3 driver?
> >
> > This is a delightful mess.
> 
> In the idea of getting this series to land, if all parties agree, I'll
> submit a patch that fixes the clock separation patch with this series
> and leave the naming as is for now.
> The renaming of clocks and alignment of everything can be addressed in
> a future series once discussion on how best to handle it has happened.
> 
> Do you concur with this?

I'm not sure about that ... i.e. adding known-broken changes
(for the rk356x) feels somewhat wrong to me.

Heiko