Re: [PATCH v3 09/27] dt-bindings: clock: mediatek: Describe MT8196 clock controllers

[AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>]

Il 04/08/25 15:58, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
> On 04/08/2025 15:27, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>
>> We discussed about aggregating votes, yes, in software - this instead is a
>> *broken* hardware that does the aggregation internally and does not require
>> nor want external drivers to do the aggregation.
>>
>>> Maybe it is just the name, so avoid all the confusing "votes" if this is
>>> not voting system. If this is a voting system, then don't use custom
>>> phandles.
>>
>> Being it fundamentally *broken*, this being a voting system is what the hardware
>> initially wanted to be - but effectively, since it requires YOU to:
>>    - Make sure that power supplies are turned on, if not, turn them on by "touching"
>>      HW registers (so, without any assistance from the voter MCU), if any;
>>    - Turn on parent clocks manually, if any, before using the "voter mcu" to try
>>      to ungate that clock; and
>>      - Enable the "FENC" manually, after the mcu says that the clock was ungated.
> 
> 
> I understand that "YOU" as Linux driver, when you want to do something
> (e.g. toggle) a clock?

"you" == Linux driver, yes.

> If so this looks a lot like power domain, although with some differences.
> 

A power domain ungates power to something.

These are clocks, giving a (x) (M)Hz signal to something.

>>
>> in the current state, it is just an hardware managed refcounting system and
>> nothing else, because the MCU seems to be unfinished, hence, again, b r o k e n.
>>
>> Note that by "manually" I always mean "with direct writes to a clock controller's
>> registerS, and without any automation/assistance from the HWV MCU".
>>
>> We're using the "hardware-voter" name because this is how MediaTek calls it in the
>> datasheets, and no it doesn't really *deserve* that name for what it is exactly in
>> MT8196 and MT6991.
> 
> Please capture most/all of this in the property description, so it will
> be clear that we treat it as some sort of exception and other users of
> that property would need similar rationale.
> 
> I am asking for this because I do not want this to be re-used for any
> other work which would represent something like real voting for
> resources. I want it to be clear for whoever looks at it later during
> new SoC bringup.

Okay, now that sounds reasonable, and that sounds like a clear suggestion with
a clear action to take.

Perfect.

Laura, please do exactly that.

P.S.: I understand what you're trying to do here, and I agree; preventing stuff
like this for things that aren't as broken as this is completely right.

> 
> If you send the same code as v4, the same commit msg, just like Laura
> did twice in v2 and v3, I will just keep NAKing via mutt macro because
> it's a waste of my time.
> 

My time isn't infinite, either :-)

>>
>> And mind you - if using the "interconnect" property for this means that we have to
>> add an interconnect driver for it, no, we will not do that, as placing a software
> 
> Existing driver(s) can be as well interconnect providers. Same with
> power domains.
> 
> I do not talk here how you should implement this in the drivers.
> 
>> vote that votes clocks in a a voter MCU that does exactly what the interconnect
> 
> What is a "software vote"? How did you encode it in DT? Via that phandle?
> 
>> driver would do - then requiring virtual/fake clocks - is not a good solution.
> 
> We do not add "software votes" in DT as separate properties, because
> they are "software". So maybe that's another problem here...
> 

Indeed - the point is, the only way to make this *broken* thing to work with an
interconnect provider would be to place a software vote to place a vote in the HW
voter, which would be ugly and wrong.

But anyway, a solution was reached. Let's just stop and avoid useless discussions
about what X could be if hardware Y wasn't broken; that'd be just a waste of time.

Regards,
Angelo

>>
>> So, what should we do then?
>>
>> Change it to "mediatek,clock-hw-refcounter", and adding a comment to the binding
>> saying that this is called "Hardware Voter (HWV)" in the datasheets?
>>
>> Or is using the "interconnect" property without any driver in the interconnect API
>> actually legit? - Because to me it doesn't look like being legit (and if it is, it
>> shouldn't be, as I'm sure that everyone would expect an interconnect API driver
>> when encountering an "interconnect" property in DT), and if so, we should just add
> 
> Why you would not add any interconnect driver for interconnect API?
> Look, the current phandle allows you to poke in some other MMIO space
> for the purpose of enabling the clock FOO? So interconnect or power
> domains or whatever allows you to have existing or new driver to receive
> xlate() and, when requested resources associated with clock FOO.
> 
> Instead of the FOO clock driver poking resources, you do
> clk_prepare_enable() or pm_domain or icc_enable().
> 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof