Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] clk: qcom: Add camera clock controller driver for SM8150

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 at 13:23, Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp)
<quic_skakitap@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 7/11/2024 3:40 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 13:53, Satya Priya Kakitapalli (Temp)
> > <quic_skakitap@xxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> >> On 7/3/2024 3:50 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 09:20:43PM GMT, Satya Priya Kakitapalli wrote:
> >>>> Add support for the camera clock controller for camera clients
> >>>> to be able to request for camcc clocks on SM8150 platform.
> >>>>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Bryan O'Donoghue<bryan.odonoghue@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Satya Priya Kakitapalli<quic_skakitap@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig        |    9 +
> >>>>    drivers/clk/qcom/Makefile       |    1 +
> >>>>    drivers/clk/qcom/camcc-sm8150.c | 2159 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>    3 files changed, 2169 insertions(+)
> >>> The patch mostly LGTM, several quesitons:
> >>>
> >>> - There are no cam_cc_sleep_clk and no cam_cc_xo_clk_src. Why?
> >> These are not required for camcc sm8150 hence not modelled.
> >>
> >>
> >>> - Why is cam_cc_gdsc_clk not modelled in the clock framework?
> >> This clock is kept enabled from probe, hence not required to be modelled
> >> explicitly.
> > Yes, I'm asking why it's kept up enabled from probe rather than via
> > clock framework?
>
>
> >>> - I see that most if not all RCG clocks use rcg2_shared ops instead of
> >>>     using simple rcg2 ops, could you please clarify that?
> >> As per the HW design recommendation, RCG needs to be parked at a safe
> >> clock source(XO) in the disable path, shared_ops is used to achieve the
> >> same.
> > Does it apply to SM8150? For example, on SM8250 RCG2s are not parked.
>
>
> Yes, it applies to SM8150.

Should the same logic be applied to other chipsets supported upstream?
If this is the case, which chipsets?

> >>> - RETAIN_FF_ENABLE has been used for GDSCs for sc7280, sc8280xp, sm8550,
> >>>     sm8650 and x1e8 platforms. Should it really be set for sm8150? If so,
> >>>     should it also be added to other camcc drivers (if so, for which
> >>>     platforms)?
> >> I have rechecked this in downstream and seems it is not really needed
> >> for sm8150, I'll drop in next post.
> >>



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry