Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] arm64: dts: qcom: sm6350: Add video clock controller

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 4/11/25 1:37 PM, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:
> 
> 
> On 4/11/2025 2:42 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 4/11/25 9:15 AM, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/1/2025 10:03 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> On 3/24/25 9:41 AM, Luca Weiss wrote:
>>>>> Add a node for the videocc found on the SM6350 SoC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Weiss <luca.weiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6350.dtsi | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>>>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6350.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6350.dtsi
>>>>> index 42f9d16c2fa6da66a8bb524a33c2687a1e4b40e0..4498d6dfd61a7e30a050a8654d54dae2d06c220c 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6350.dtsi
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6350.dtsi
>>>>> @@ -1952,6 +1952,20 @@ usb_1_dwc3_ss_out: endpoint {
>>>>>  			};
>>>>>  		};
>>>>>  
>>>>> +		videocc: clock-controller@aaf0000 {
>>>>> +			compatible = "qcom,sm6350-videocc";
>>>>> +			reg = <0x0 0x0aaf0000 0x0 0x10000>;
>>>>> +			clocks = <&gcc GCC_VIDEO_AHB_CLK>,
>>>>> +				 <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>,
>>>>> +				 <&sleep_clk>;
>>>>> +			clock-names = "iface",
>>>>> +				      "bi_tcxo",
>>>>> +				      "sleep_clk";
>>>>> +			#clock-cells = <1>;
>>>>> +			#reset-cells = <1>;
>>>>> +			#power-domain-cells = <1>;
>>>>> +		};
>>>>
>>>> You'll probably want to hook up some additional power domains here, see
>>>>
>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20250327-videocc-pll-multi-pd-voting-v3-0-895fafd62627@xxxxxxxxxxx/
>>>>
>>>
>>> On SM6350, videocc doesn't need multiple power domains at HW level, it is only on CX rail which would be ON
>>> when system is active, hence power-domains are not mandatory here.
>>
>> 6350 doesn't have either MMCX nor a split MX - shouldn't both normal
>> CX and MX be in there?
>>
> 
> All clocks & GDSC's of SM6350 videocc are only on CX rail, so it requires only CX power domain. But when HLOS
> is active, CX rail will be ON and operate at a level above retention, which is sufficient for videocc to operate.
> Hence clock driver don't need to explicitly vote on CX rail.
> 
> The same is not true for other rails like MMCX and Split MX(MXC), hence clock drivers had to explicitly vote on
> those rails.

I'm worried about MX being undervolted for higher OPPs

Konrad