| Message ID | 20221230155502.115205-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [RFT] arm64: dts: qcom: sc8280xp: remove GCC from CX power domain | expand |
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 04:55:02PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Bindings do not allow power-domain property in GCC clock controller and > documentation does not indicate that GCC is part of VDD_CX. > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> > > --- > > Maybe the bindings should be fixed? Maybe this was added as workaround? > Anyway looking at documentation I do not see such relation, except > downstream vdd_cx-supply (which is the same as in other SoCs and we do > not represent it in upstream). The GCC itself is powered by CX and the GDSC power-domains exposed by GCC are powered by CX. It's fairly recently that we started attempting to scale CX - and attempted to suspend things. But this is probably how it should be represented on all platforms. So let's fix the binding instead. Regards, Bjorn > --- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi > index 1d1420c8720c..d14663c9f34c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi > @@ -799,7 +799,6 @@ gcc: clock-controller@100000 { > <&pcie4_phy>, > <0>, > <0>; > - power-domains = <&rpmhpd SC8280XP_CX>; > }; > > ipcc: mailbox@408000 { > -- > 2.34.1 >
On 30/12/2022 18:16, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 04:55:02PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> Bindings do not allow power-domain property in GCC clock controller and >> documentation does not indicate that GCC is part of VDD_CX. >> >> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> >> >> --- >> >> Maybe the bindings should be fixed? Maybe this was added as workaround? >> Anyway looking at documentation I do not see such relation, except >> downstream vdd_cx-supply (which is the same as in other SoCs and we do >> not represent it in upstream). > > The GCC itself is powered by CX and the GDSC power-domains exposed by > GCC are powered by CX. > > It's fairly recently that we started attempting to scale CX - and > attempted to suspend things. But this is probably how it should be > represented on all platforms. > > > So let's fix the binding instead. Sure. Best regards, Krzysztof
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi index 1d1420c8720c..d14663c9f34c 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi @@ -799,7 +799,6 @@ gcc: clock-controller@100000 { <&pcie4_phy>, <0>, <0>; - power-domains = <&rpmhpd SC8280XP_CX>; }; ipcc: mailbox@408000 {
Bindings do not allow power-domain property in GCC clock controller and documentation does not indicate that GCC is part of VDD_CX. Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> --- Maybe the bindings should be fixed? Maybe this was added as workaround? Anyway looking at documentation I do not see such relation, except downstream vdd_cx-supply (which is the same as in other SoCs and we do not represent it in upstream). --- arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc8280xp.dtsi | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)