Re: [PATCH 01/11] dt-bindings: crypto: qcom,ice: Require power-domain and iface clk

[Harshal Dev <harshal.dev@oss.qualcomm.com>]

Hi Krzysztof,

On 1/23/2026 2:27 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 23/01/2026 08:11, Harshal Dev wrote:
>> Update the inline-crypto engine DT binding to reflect that power-domain and
>> clock-names are now mandatory. Also update the maximum number of clocks
>> that can be specified to two. These new fields are mandatory because ICE
>> needs to vote on the power domain before it attempts to vote on the core
>> and iface clocks to avoid clock 'stuck' issues.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Harshal Dev <harshal.dev@oss.qualcomm.com>
>> ---
>>  .../bindings/crypto/qcom,inline-crypto-engine.yaml         | 14 +++++++++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/qcom,inline-crypto-engine.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/qcom,inline-crypto-engine.yaml
>> index c3408dcf5d20..1c2416117d4c 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/qcom,inline-crypto-engine.yaml
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/crypto/qcom,inline-crypto-engine.yaml
>> @@ -28,12 +28,20 @@ properties:
>>      maxItems: 1
>>  
>>    clocks:
>> +    maxItems: 2
> 
> This is ABI break and your commit msg suggests things were not perfect,
> but it is not explicit - was this working or not? How is it that ICE was
> never tested?
> 

I took some time to educate myself on the point of DT bindings stability being a
strict requirement now, so I understand how these changes are breaking ABI, I'll
send a better version of this again.

As for your question of how it was working till now, it seems that
things were tested with the 'clk_ignore_unused' flag, or with CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_QCOM
flag being override set to 'y'. When this is done, QCOM-ICE (on which QCOM-UFS
depends) initiates probe _before_ the unused clocks and power-domains are
disabled by the kernel. And so, the un-clocked register access or clock 'stuck'
isn't observed (since the clocks and power domains are already enabled).
Perhaps I should write this scenario explicitly in the commit message?

To maintain backward compatibility, let me introduce minItems and maxItems for clocks.
When the Linux distro uses CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_QCOM=y, we can do with just 1 clock as
before.

>> +
>> +  clock-names:
>> +    maxItems: 2
> 
> Why "yellowpony" is a correct name? Please look at existing code to see
> how this is done.
> 

Ack, I will try to list down the acceptable clock names here.

> 
>> +
>> +  power-domains:
>>      maxItems: 1
>>  
>>  required:
>>    - compatible
>>    - reg
>>    - clocks
>> +  - clock-names
>> +  - power-domains
> 
> Another ABI break...

Let me avoid adding clock-names and power-domains as required. Since for scenarios
where a Linux distro uses CONFIG_SCSI_UFS_QCOM=y, this isn't mandatory as I explained above.

> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Regards,
Harshal