| Message ID | 20220726174525.620-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | dt-bindings: clock: renesas,rzg2l: Document RZ/Five SoC | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| robh/checkpatch | success | |
| robh/patch-applied | success | |
| robh/dtbs-check | warning | build log |
| robh/dt-meta-schema | success |
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 06:45:25PM +0100, Lad Prabhakar wrote: > The CPG block on the RZ/Five SoC is almost identical to one found on the > RZ/G2UL SoC. "renesas,r9a07g043-cpg" compatible string will be used on > the RZ/Five SoC so to make this clear, update the comment to include > RZ/Five SoC. It's either the same part or it isn't. 'almost identical' doesn't sound like the former. Unless it's the former, it's a nak for me. Litering the drivers with #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64/CONFIG_RISCV is not great either. That's not great for compile coverage and they have nothing to do with the architecture. > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> > --- > Note the driver changes [0] have been already queued for v5.20. > > [0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-renesas-soc/cover/ > 20220622181723.13033-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com/ > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/renesas,rzg2l-cpg.yaml | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/renesas,rzg2l-cpg.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/renesas,rzg2l-cpg.yaml > index d036675e0779..487f74cdc749 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/renesas,rzg2l-cpg.yaml > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/renesas,rzg2l-cpg.yaml > @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ description: | > properties: > compatible: > enum: > - - renesas,r9a07g043-cpg # RZ/G2UL{Type-1,Type-2} > + - renesas,r9a07g043-cpg # RZ/G2UL{Type-1,Type-2} and RZ/Five > - renesas,r9a07g044-cpg # RZ/G2{L,LC} > - renesas,r9a07g054-cpg # RZ/V2L > - renesas,r9a09g011-cpg # RZ/V2M > -- > 2.17.1 > >
Hi Rob, Thank you for the review. On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 4:37 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 06:45:25PM +0100, Lad Prabhakar wrote: > > The CPG block on the RZ/Five SoC is almost identical to one found on the > > RZ/G2UL SoC. "renesas,r9a07g043-cpg" compatible string will be used on > > the RZ/Five SoC so to make this clear, update the comment to include > > RZ/Five SoC. > > It's either the same part or it isn't. 'almost identical' doesn't sound > like the former. Unless it's the former, it's a nak for me. > It's the latter. > Litering the drivers with #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64/CONFIG_RISCV is not great > either. That's not great for compile coverage and they have nothing to > do with the architecture. > Geert any thoughts? Cheers, Prabhakar > > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> > > --- > > Note the driver changes [0] have been already queued for v5.20. > > > > [0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-renesas-soc/cover/ > > 20220622181723.13033-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com/ > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/renesas,rzg2l-cpg.yaml | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/renesas,rzg2l-cpg.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/renesas,rzg2l-cpg.yaml > > index d036675e0779..487f74cdc749 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/renesas,rzg2l-cpg.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/renesas,rzg2l-cpg.yaml > > @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ description: | > > properties: > > compatible: > > enum: > > - - renesas,r9a07g043-cpg # RZ/G2UL{Type-1,Type-2} > > + - renesas,r9a07g043-cpg # RZ/G2UL{Type-1,Type-2} and RZ/Five > > - renesas,r9a07g044-cpg # RZ/G2{L,LC} > > - renesas,r9a07g054-cpg # RZ/V2L > > - renesas,r9a09g011-cpg # RZ/V2M > > -- > > 2.17.1 > > > >
Hi Rob, On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 10:48 AM Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 4:37 PM Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 06:45:25PM +0100, Lad Prabhakar wrote: > > > The CPG block on the RZ/Five SoC is almost identical to one found on the > > > RZ/G2UL SoC. "renesas,r9a07g043-cpg" compatible string will be used on > > > the RZ/Five SoC so to make this clear, update the comment to include > > > RZ/Five SoC. > > > > It's either the same part or it isn't. 'almost identical' doesn't sound > > like the former. Unless it's the former, it's a nak for me. > > > It's the latter. To me, it looks like both blocks are identical, and the differences are in the integration into the SoC: 1. Some clocks do not exist (are not documented?) on RZ/Five, because the consumer blocks do not exist (are not documented?). 2. Some interrupt controller clocks and resets have different names, but use the exact same registers and bits. For 1, probably we could have kept those clocks anyway (they would be disabled by CCF due to being unused). But I'm not 100% sure it is safe to write to the corresponding registers (probably the hardware engineers would recommend not to access the registers, regardless if it is safe or not ;-), so we do not instantiate these clocks on RISC-V. For 2, we decided to play it safe, too, and follow the naming in the documentation, in both bindings and driver. > > Litering the drivers with #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64/CONFIG_RISCV is not great > > either. That's not great for compile coverage and they have nothing to > > do with the architecture. I agree #ifdef's do have disadvantages. But they seemed to be the best pragmatic solution, to avoid two separate drivers. And the architecture does specify SoC integration. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 7:45 PM Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> wrote: > The CPG block on the RZ/Five SoC is almost identical to one found on the > RZ/G2UL SoC. "renesas,r9a07g043-cpg" compatible string will be used on > the RZ/Five SoC so to make this clear, update the comment to include > RZ/Five SoC. > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> Reviewed-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> i.e. will queue in renesas-clk-for-v6.1. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/renesas,rzg2l-cpg.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/renesas,rzg2l-cpg.yaml index d036675e0779..487f74cdc749 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/renesas,rzg2l-cpg.yaml +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/renesas,rzg2l-cpg.yaml @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ description: | properties: compatible: enum: - - renesas,r9a07g043-cpg # RZ/G2UL{Type-1,Type-2} + - renesas,r9a07g043-cpg # RZ/G2UL{Type-1,Type-2} and RZ/Five - renesas,r9a07g044-cpg # RZ/G2{L,LC} - renesas,r9a07g054-cpg # RZ/V2L - renesas,r9a09g011-cpg # RZ/V2M
The CPG block on the RZ/Five SoC is almost identical to one found on the RZ/G2UL SoC. "renesas,r9a07g043-cpg" compatible string will be used on the RZ/Five SoC so to make this clear, update the comment to include RZ/Five SoC. Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> --- Note the driver changes [0] have been already queued for v5.20. [0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-renesas-soc/cover/ 20220622181723.13033-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com/ --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/renesas,rzg2l-cpg.yaml | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)