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

[Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 1/23/26 12:04 PM, Harshal Dev wrote:
> 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.

You must not assume any particular kernel configuration

clk_ignore_unused is a hack which leads to situations like this, since
the bootloader doesn't clean up clocks it turned on, which leads to
situations like this where someone who previously wrote this binding
didn't care enough to **actually** test whether this device can operate
with only the set of clocks it requires

I believe in this case it absolutely makes sense to break things, but
you must put the backstory in writing, in the commit message

Konrad