Re: [PATCH v2 12/15] arm64: dts: qcom: sm6125: Switch fixed xo_board clock to RPM XO clock

From: Konrad Dybcio
Date: Thu Jun 29 2023 - 15:20:47 EST


On 29.06.2023 14:26, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 at 15:09, Marijn Suijten
> <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 2023-06-29 13:55:28, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2023 23:14, Marijn Suijten wrote:
>>>> We have a working RPM XO clock; no other driver except rpmcc should be
>>>> parenting directly to the fixed-factor xo_board clock nor should it be
>>>> reachable by that global name. Remove the name to that effect, so that
>>>> every clock relation is explicitly defined in DTS.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi | 7 ++++---
>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
>>>> index 722dde560bec..edb03508dba3 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
>>>> @@ -22,7 +22,6 @@ xo_board: xo-board {
>>>> compatible = "fixed-clock";
>>>> #clock-cells = <0>;
>>>> clock-frequency = <19200000>;
>>>> - clock-output-names = "xo_board";
>>>
>>> Why? I'd say, leave it.
>>
>> The exact reason is explained in the commit message.
>
> Usually we do no not kill the xo_board name for the sake of anybody
> still looking for the old name. Weak argument, I know.
The only users are (rg -l '"xo_board"' drivers):

drivers/clk/qcom/mmcc-msm8974.c
drivers/clk/qcom/a53-pll.c
drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8974.c
drivers/clk/qcom/clk-smd-rpm.c
drivers/clk/qcom/mmcc-msm8996.c
drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8916.c
drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-apq8084.c
drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-msm8996.c
drivers/clk/qcom/mmcc-apq8084.c
drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/hdmi/hdmi_phy_8996.c

This platform only binds clk-smd-rpm, but patch 11 provides a
direct reference in the DT.

Konrad

>
>>
>>>
>>> With that fixed:
>>
>> Hence I don't think it makes sense to "fix" this.
>>
>> - Marijn
>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>