Re: [PATCH V2 RESEND 6/6] arm64: dts: qcom: sm8650: Add video and camera clock controllers

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 13:06, Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/4/2024 11:00 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 08:13, Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4/3/2024 9:24 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 10:16, Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 3/25/2024 11:38 AM, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 3/21/2024 6:43 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 at 11:27, Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Add device nodes for video and camera clock controllers on Qualcomm
> >>>>>>> SM8650 platform.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>     arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650.dtsi | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>>>     1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650.dtsi
> >>>>>>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650.dtsi
> >>>>>>> index 32c0a7b9aded..d862aa6be824 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650.dtsi
> >>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm8650.dtsi
> >>>>>>> @@ -4,6 +4,8 @@
> >>>>>>>      */
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>     #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,rpmh.h>
> >>>>>>> +#include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,sm8450-videocc.h>
> >>>>>>> +#include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,sm8650-camcc.h>
> >>>>>>>     #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,sm8650-dispcc.h>
> >>>>>>>     #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,sm8650-gcc.h>
> >>>>>>>     #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,sm8650-gpucc.h>
> >>>>>>> @@ -3110,6 +3112,32 @@ opp-202000000 {
> >>>>>>>                            };
> >>>>>>>                    };
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +               videocc: clock-controller@aaf0000 {
> >>>>>>> +                       compatible = "qcom,sm8650-videocc";
> >>>>>>> +                       reg = <0 0x0aaf0000 0 0x10000>;
> >>>>>>> +                       clocks = <&bi_tcxo_div2>,
> >>>>>>> +                                <&gcc GCC_VIDEO_AHB_CLK>;
> >>>>>>> +                       power-domains = <&rpmhpd RPMHPD_MMCX>;
> >>>>>>> +                       required-opps = <&rpmhpd_opp_low_svs>;
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The required-opps should no longer be necessary.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sure, will check and remove this if not required.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I checked further on this and without required-opps, if there is no vote
> >>>> on the power-domain & its peer from any other consumers, when runtime
> >>>> get is called on device, it enables the power domain just at the minimum
> >>>> non-zero level. But in some cases, the minimum non-zero level of
> >>>> power-domain could be just retention and is not sufficient for clock
> >>>> controller to operate, hence required-opps property is needed to specify
> >>>> the minimum level required on power-domain for this clock controller.
> >>>
> >>> In which cases? If it ends up with the retention vote, it is a bug
> >>> which must be fixed.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The minimum non-zero level(configured from bootloaders) of MMCX is
> >> retention on few chipsets but it can vary across the chipsets. Hence to
> >> be on safer side from our end, it is good to have required-opps in DT to
> >> specify the minimum level required for this clock controller.
> >
> > We are discussing sm8650, not some abstract chipset. Does it list
> > retention or low_svs as a minimal level for MMCX?
> >
>
> Actually, the minimum level for MMCX is external to the clock
> controllers.

Yes, it comes from cmd-db

>  But the clock controller requires MMCX to be atleast at
> lowsvs for it to be functional.

Correct

> Hence we need to keep required-opps to
> ensure the same without relying on the actual minimum level for MMCX.

And this is not correct. There is no need for the DT to be redundant.
I plan to send patches removing the existing required-opps when they
are not required.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry