On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Tero Kristo [off-list ref] wrote:

On 30/10/16 22:41, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 03:45:59PM +0300, Tero Kristo wrote:

quoted

Add a clock implementation, TI SCI clock, that will hook to the common
clock framework, and allow each clock to be controlled via TI SCI
protocol.

Signed-off-by: Tero Kristo <redacted>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/clock/ti,sci-clk.txt       | 37
++++++++++++++++++++++
 MAINTAINERS                                        |  1 +
 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti,sci-clk.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti,sci-clk.txt

b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti,sci-clk.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bfc3ca4

--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/ti,sci-clk.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+Texas Instruments TI-SCI Clocks
+===============================
+
+All clocks on Texas Instruments' SoCs that contain a System Controller,
+are only controlled by this entity. Communication between a host

processor
+running an OS and the System Controller happens through a protocol known
+as TI-SCI[1]. This clock implementation plugs into the common clock
+framework and makes use of the TI-SCI protocol on clock API requests.
+
+[1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/keystone/ti,sci.txt
+
+Required properties:
+-------------------
+- compatible: Must be "ti,k2g-sci-clk"
+- #clock-cells: Shall be 2.
+  In clock consumers, this cell represents the device ID and clock ID
+  exposed by the PM firmware. The assignments can be found in the header
+  files <dt-bindings/genpd/<soc>.h> (which covers the device IDs) and
+  <dt-bindings/clock/<soc>.h> (which covers the clock IDs), where <soc>
+  is the SoC involved, for example 'k2g'.
+
+Examples:
+--------
+
+pmmc: pmmc {
+       compatible = "ti,k2g-sci";
+
+       k2g_clks: k2g_clks {

Use "clocks" for node name instead.

quoted

+               compatible = "ti,k2g-sci-clk";

I'm starting to think all these child nodes for SCI are pointless. Is
there any reason why the parent node can't be the clock provider (along
with all the other providers it acks as)?

I believe the only reason to keep them separate is to have kernel side of
things modular. If we have separate nodes, the drivers can be probed
separately.

If not, we need to build one huge blob with all the features in it, so the
main driver can probe everything in one go, with annoying back-and-forth
callbacks in place (assuming we still want to keep stuff somehow modular.)

Since when is DT the only way to create a device? The main driver can
create devices for all the sub-functions like clocks. This is the same
as MFDs which have been done both ways.

Rob