Re: [PATCH 7/7] clk: qcom: gcc: Add support for Global Clock Controller

[Taniya Das <taniya.das@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 7/20/2025 9:30 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:07:23PM +0530, Taniya Das wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 7/17/2025 3:38 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 17/07/2025 11:57, Abel Vesa wrote:
>>>> On 25-07-16 20:50:17, Pankaj Patil wrote:
>>>>> From: Taniya Das <taniya.das@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add support for Global clock controller for Glymur platform.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Taniya Das <taniya.das@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Patil <pankaj.patil@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig      |   10 +
>>>>>  drivers/clk/qcom/Makefile     |    1 +
>>>>>  drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-glymur.c | 8623 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  3 files changed, 8634 insertions(+)
>>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-glymur.c
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig
>>>>> index 051301007aa6..1d9e8c6aeaed 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig
>>>>> @@ -645,6 +645,16 @@ config SAR_GPUCC_2130P
>>>>>  	  Say Y if you want to support graphics controller devices and
>>>>>  	  functionality such as 3D graphics.
>>>>>  
>>>>> +config SC_GCC_GLYMUR
>>>>
>>>> Wait, are we going back to this now?
>>>>
>>>> X Elite had CLK_X1E80100_GCC, so maybe this should be CLK_GLYMUR_GCC
>>>> then.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, the SC is meaningless here, unless you call it CLK_SC8480XP_GCC,
>>> so the authors need to decide on one naming. Not mixtures..
>>>
>>>
>> Glymur follows the "SC" naming convention, and historically we've
>> adhered to the format: "SC/SM/SDX/SA_<Clock Controller>_<Target Name or
>> Chipset>". This structure has helped maintain consistency and clarity
>> across platforms.
>>
> 
> The platform isn't named SCGLYMUR - which is where the SC prefix would
> come from.
> 
> I'm not sure there's a benefit to quickly be able to know if a clock
> controller is for a SC, SM, SA, MSM, etc platform. Please let me know if
> I'm missing something.
> 

Bjorn it was more of an alignment for "Compute", "Mobile" and so on and
such was the definition to be used for the clock controllers as well.

>> The case of X1E80100 appears to be an exception—likely influenced by its
>> unique naming convention at the time.
>>
>> That said, I’d prefer to stay aligned with the established convention
>> used for earlier chipsets to preserve continuity. I’d appreciate hearing
>> your thoughts on this as well.
>>
> 
> We're changing the naming model completely, so there is no continuity.
> In fact the Hamoa "exception" would suite us very well for Glymur.
> 
> And look how nicely the CLK_X1E80100_* entries are grouped together in
> the Kconfig.
> 
> Change to CLK_GLYMUR_* please.
> 

Sure, will align, but hope we are all good with the clock driver name
<cc>-<target>.c.

-- 
Thanks,
Taniya Das