On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 10:26:15AM +0000, manikanda...@microchip.com wrote: > Hi Eugen and Sumit, > > On 28/02/25 5:07 pm, Sumit Garg wrote: > > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the > > content is safe > > > > On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 at 16:45, Eugen Hristev <eugen.hris...@linaro.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 2/28/25 12:58, Sumit Garg wrote: > >>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 at 15:20, <manikanda...@microchip.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Eugen, > >>>> > >>>> On 27/02/25 7:48 pm, Eugen Hristev wrote: > >>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know > >>>>> the content is safe > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2/27/25 12:37, manikanda...@microchip.com wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Sumit, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 27/02/25 3:14 pm, Sumit Garg wrote: > >>>>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you > >>>>>>> know the content is safe > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 at 15:06, Manikandan Muralidharan > >>>>>>> <manikanda...@microchip.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Add PMC clock definitions for MCK and UTMI which will be required > >>>>>>>> for the sam9x7 OF_upstream DT since the clock framework is not in > >>>>>>>> sync with Linux and also include this header in 'clock/at91.h' file > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You should rather drop these local DT bindings headers which will > >>>>>>> allow dts/upstream/include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h to be included > >>>>>>> automatically. > >>>>>> Other SoC DTs where OF_UPSTREAM migration is not added yet, depends on > >>>>>> the local DT bindings header, dropping this will lead to issues with > >>>>>> compilation. > >>>>>> We can drop this altogether when we sync the u-boot clock framework > >>>>>> with > >>>>>> Linux. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -Sumit > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Manikandan Muralidharan <manikanda...@microchip.com> > >>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>> include/dt-bindings/clk/at91.h | 3 +++ > >>>>>>>> include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h | 2 ++ > >>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clk/at91.h > >>>>>>>> b/include/dt-bindings/clk/at91.h > >>>>>>>> index a178b94157b..016c6e0c620 100644 > >>>>>>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clk/at91.h > >>>>>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clk/at91.h > >>>>>>>> @@ -24,4 +24,7 @@ > >>>>>>>> #define USB_UTMI2 1 > >>>>>>>> #define USB_UTMI3 2 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> +#define PMC_MCK 1 > >>>>>>>> +#define PMC_UTMI 2 > >>>>> > >>>>> Where in the patch series do you need these defines ? > >>>>> > >>>>>>>> + > >>>>>>>> #endif > >>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h > >>>>>>>> b/include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h > >>>>>>>> index ab3ee241d10..7235b3ba01e 100644 > >>>>>>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h > >>>>>>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h > >>>>>>>> @@ -6,6 +6,8 @@ > >>>>>>>> * Licensed under GPLv2 or later. > >>>>>>>> */ > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> +#include <dt-bindings/clk/at91.h> > >>>>>>>> + > >>>>> > >>>>> I find this odd to include one at91.h in another at91.h > >>>>> > >>>>> Let's consider to remove one of these files in the future, and have just > >>>>> one that is identical with the bindings one from Linux > >>>>> > >>>>> Meanwhile, let's see where do you need the PMC_* > >>>> The PMC_MCK and PMC_UTMI are defined in the dts/upstream sam9x7 SoC DT. > >>>> since during compilation the clock/at91.h from u-boot is used and to > >>>> resolve the syntax issues I had to declare them in clk/at91.h and > >>>> include the header in clock/at91.h > >> > >> I don't understand this. So , compiling sam9x7 upstream DT with upstream > >> at91.h should work. > >> Do you have issues with sam9x7-u-boot.dtsi that fails build ? > >> > >>>> > >>>> if we drop the clock/at91.h from u-boot, the sam9x75 will pass using the > >>>> includes from upstream Linux but will break other SoC that has not > >>>> migrated to OF_UPSTREAM yet. > >> > >> So you need to include clock/at91.h from upstream for sam9x75 and the > >> other at91.h for older SoC. > >> Does that work ? > > > > The way it works currently is you can have a single clock/at91.h > > available where preference is currently given to local U-Boot copy > > (for backwards compatibility) over what is available in upstream DT. > > So can't have different versions of clock/at91.h available. > > > >> > >>>> > >>>> Or we can align u-boot's clock/at91.h with Linux and drop clk/at91.h, > >>>> replace it with clock/at91.h in drivers and DT. > >>>> Please let me know if that works. > >>> > >>> I would rather favor the U-Boot drivers and DT to directly use > >>> dts/upstream/include/dt-bindings/clock/at91.h instead and drop local > >>> DT bindings import. It then becomes easier for other SoCs to migrate > >>> to OF_UPSTREAM too. > >> > >> Sumit, > >> > >> The problem is that there are two at91.h with different definitions for > >> the same macros. (I know... legacy reasons..) > >> The drivers have to be reworked to cope with the new values. Meanwhile I > >> would say that at least the new SoCs should use the right macros/bindings > > > > Since the drivers are also common for both new and older SoCs, it's > > rather better to adapt them to common bindings rather than supporting > > 2 different versions of clock/at91.h. If you want to do that as part > > of this series or later will be based on your preference. > > To ensure consistency and compatibility with upstream, I'll rename the > local clock/at91.h to clock/at91-pmc-status.h in U-Boot and update the > relevant legacy SoC Device Trees to reflect this change. > This will allow the new sam9x7 SoC DT and driver to utilize the standard > upstream dt-bindings/clock/at91.h without modifications. > We shall later refine at91-pmc-status.h during clock synchronization > with Linux. > Please let me know if this sounds good >
Sounds reasonable to me. -Sumit
