Re: [PATCH 0/4] mtd: rawnand: qcom: Add MDM9607
Miquel Raynal <[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 06/07/2026 at 18:18:15 +02, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/07/2026 18:00, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 06, 2026 at 04:42:21PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote: >> >>>> and if the driver queries the frequency of >>>> RPM_SMD_QPIC_CLK, it would just return the same frequency. This is where the >>>> dummy clock comes handy as it atleast provides a valid clock frequency to the >>>> driver. But I'm not advocating for its usage here anymore. >>>> >>>> Hence IMO, assigning the same RPM_SMD_QPIC_CLK to all 3 clocks is not the right >>>> approach and we should be assigning a single RPM_SMD_QPIC_CLK to >>>> 'core' clk. >>> >>> You said using three times the same clock would be wrong because we >>> would get three times the same rate whereas in practice it's wrong. This >>> means the OS has access to these clocks somehow, >> >> No, there is no way the OS can access these 3 clocks individually on the RPMh >> enabled platforms. But the OS indeed has access to these 3 clocks on non-RPMh >> platforms like the older IPQ ones. > > I think RPMh is a bit different case than recently discussed SCMI > firmware layer, although maybe the true difference is irrelevant - > whoever implements the clock handling, it is not Linux. Anyway, in case > of SCMI this is the same die having either firmware or OS controlling > clocks. > > Here the SoCs (IPO ones without RPMh and this one with RPMh) are different. > > If this was some bus device (I2C, SPI etc), then I would argue that the > device pins matter. > > However this is internal part of the SoC, so while it still has some > wirings, they are heavily hidden or abstracted, thus I am fine with > approach that clocks represent the clock interfaces available to the OS, > not the physical wires inside SoC. Thank you very much for this feedback. I understand the rationale, and will keep that in mind for future reviews. Best regards, Miquèl ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/