Re: [PATCH 0/4] mtd: rawnand: qcom: Add MDM9607
Stephan Gerhold <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.infradead.lists.linux-mtd,org.kernel.vger.linux-arm-msm,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 03:18:18PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote: > On 06/07/2026 at 14:55:26 +02, Stephan Gerhold <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 05:46:57PM +0200, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 08, 2026 at 03:20:21PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote: > >> > MDM9607 has QPIC v1.5 that supports the OP_PAGE_READ_ONFI_READ command, but > >> > is missing the rest of the hardware changes in QPIC v2. There is also only > >> > a single clock that can be controlled using the RPM firmware. Document and > >> > add the new qcom,mdm9607-nand compatible for this setup. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <[email protected]> > >> > >> You could ammend patch 1's commit message with the information I shared in the > >> reply. But nevertheless: > >> > >> Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <[email protected]> > >> > > > > Do you want me to resend the series with patch 1 commit message > > adjusted? There were no other changes requested as far as I can tell. > > I was mostly waiting for answers on my questions from the DT binding > maintainers, but I understand they must be too loaded at the moment. > > > I think the current commit message there is fine, especially if you add > > the Link: tag during applying. The extra context will be there. > > > > If you want me to resend, I would just replace the second paragraph in > > patch 1 with the following: > > > > --- > > On MDM9607 and other recent SoCs, the QPIC hardware requires 3 clocks > > (ahb, core, aon). However, the access to these clocks is restricted to > > the RPM firmware that controls the shared power resources for the whole > > SoC. The clocks cannot be controlled separately, there is only a single > > RPM_SMD_QPIC_CLK clock that implicitly enables all of the 3 clocks. > > The only exception to this are some IPQ* SoC that are not using RPM, > > there the clocks are directly controlled by the kernel via the clock > > controller (GCC). Require only one clock in the dt-bindings for MDM9607 > > to avoid having to define dummy clock entries. > > I am sorry but this is still incorrect. You don't have to define 2 dummy > clocks. You would have to define 3 times the same clock (and that's not > a problem). I have been working on the concept of clock nexus which > may solve this kind of issue in a rather elegant way but that's not > ready yet. > > In my opinion the binding that you want to push (a single clock) is > wrong, but since I've been explaining this for several weeks already, > please at least fix the commit message and I will take it as you want. > Thanks for your feedback! Either way works for me personally, but now we have a conflict between your requested changes and the feedback from Mani, who maintains this driver. :-) @Mani: Would you also be fine with defining all 3 clocks in the DT ("ahb", "core", "aon") and then assigning the RPM_SMD_QPIC_CLK to all of them? Thanks, Stephan ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/