Quoting Tony Lindgren (2016-12-12 17:31:34)

* Stephen Boyd [off-list ref] [161212 16:49]:

quoted

On 12/12, Michael Turquette wrote:

quoted

Quoting Tero Kristo (2016-12-02 00:15:53)

quoted

On 29/10/16 02:37, Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

On 10/28, Tero Kristo wrote:

quoted

Eventually that should happen. However, we have plenty of legacy
code still in place which depend on clk_get functionality within
kernel. The major contributing factor is the hwmod codebase, for
which we have plans to:

- get this clock driver merged
- implement a new interconnect driver for OMAP family SoCs
- interconnect driver will use DT handles for fetching clocks,
rather than clock aliases
- reset handling will be implemented as part of the interconnect
driver somehow (no prototype / clear plans for that as of yet)
- all the hwmod stuff can be dropped

The clock alias handling is still needed as a transition phase until
all the above is done, then we can start dropping them. Basically
anything that is using omap_hwmod depends on the clock aliases right
now.

Ok, sounds good. Thanks.

Stephen, any final comments on this series? I guess its too late to push 
for 4.10, but I would like to get this merged early for 4.11 window.

Hi Tero,

No final comments from me. I needed to go back and forth with Tony about
the clockdomain modeling, but it seems sensible to create clock
providers from the clock domains if you want to pass those struct clk
objects down to the drivers.

One thing I wasn't able to follow exactly in the code is how the
clockdomains are linking parent clocks from cm1, cm2, etc to the clock
domains. Are the clockdomain providers calling clk_get() on the clocks
that it *consumes*, or are the clockdomain providers never calling
clk_get() on those clocks and just establishing the tree hierarchy at
clk_register() time?

Unless Stephen has any more review comments we can merge this into a
clk-next based on v4.10-rc1 when that drops.

I spent a bunch of time looking at this again today. From a DT
perspective we don't want to have clocks or clockdomains nodes
below the cm1/cm2/prm dt nodes. That's getting to the point of
describing individual elements of a device that should be
described in the driver instead of DT.

I agree we don't need separate clocks and clockdomain nodes.. But
I think you're missing something here though. The clockdomains in
this case are separate devices on the interconnect, not individual
elements within a device. The outputs of a clockdomain are individual
elements of a clockdomain and can be just described as indexed
outputs of the clockdomain.

Is the goal to describe this hardware topology in DT? Is that right
thing to do? I think it's cool to have this modeled *somehow* in Linux,
but I'm not sure DT is the right place to model the interconnect and
every device hanging off of it.

I don't want to put words in Stephen's mouth, but I think the issue over
whether clockdomains are CCF clock providers or some genpd thing is
probably less important to him than the fact that the DT bindings are
super detailed to inner workings of the SoC.

Regards,
Mike

So we just need the clockdomain clock nodes, then each clock output is
just offset from that clockdomain. And we can have readable defines
for the offsets. That's all there should be to it.

quoted

I'd also prefer we didn't have cm1/cm2/prm nodes and just had one
prcm node as the clock provider (#clock-cells) because that's the
aligned register address space that's visible on the bus.  From
my perspective cm1/cm2/prm look like macros that are put inside
the prcm container and they're at least aligned on some register
address boundary so I'm not too worried if we keep describing
down to the level of these modules in DT. Anything beyond that is
not good though.

Having just one prcm node instead of cm1, cm2 and prm is wrong from
hardware point of view. These are on separate interconnect instances.
Ideally the clockdomain clock driver works for all these though, just
separate instances of the same driver.

quoted

Finally we come to using clock providers or genpds for the clock
domains. If we don't put clockdomains into DT (because I don't
want clockdomain nodes) then this problem almost goes away. At
least, I don't really care what happens here because it will be
an internal TI prcm driver question of implementation. A clk
consumer will just see a provider that outputs some sort of clk.
If that happens to go through a clockdomain and we need to toggle
some bits inside the domain registers to make the clk actually
output a signal, that's fine. The prcm driver can take care of it
behind the scenes. Or at a later date we can model the domain as
a genpd and have the framework turn on/off genpds attached to
certain clocks. There's a lot of freedom here as long as we don't
put things in DT.

Yeah totally agree. And this problem also goes away when we just
assume a clockdomain is just a clock device with multiple outputs.
Any magic that needs to happen beyond that can be dealt with at
the interconnect level.

Regards,

Tony