Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] ARM: dra762: hwmod: Add MCAN support

[Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>]

Hi,

On Thursday 31 May 2018 08:56 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> [180531 06:18]:
>> On 30/05/18 18:54, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> * Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> [180530 15:44]:
>>>> On 30/05/18 18:28, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>>>> * Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> [180530 15:18]:
>>>>>> For the OCP if part, I think that is still needed until we switch over to
>>>>>> full sysc driver. clkctrl_offs you probably also need because that is used
>>>>>> for mapping the omap_hwmod against a specific clkctrl clock. Those can be
>>>>>> only removed once we are done with hwmod (or figure out some other way to
>>>>>> assign the clkctrl clock to a hwmod.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm might be worth testing. I thought your commit 70f05be32133
>>>>> ("ARM: OMAP2+: hwmod: populate clkctrl clocks for hwmods if available")
>>>>> already parses the clkctrl from dts?
>>>>
>>>> It maps the clkctrl clock to be used by hwmod, if those are available. We
>>>> didn't add any specific clock entries to DT for mapping the actual clkctrl
>>>> clock without the hwmod_data hints yet though, as that was deemed temporary
>>>> solution only due to transition to interconnect driver. I.e., you would need
>>>> something like this in DT for every device node:
>>>>
>>>> &uart3 {
>>>>    clocks = <l4per_clkctrl UART3_CLK 0>;
>>>>    clock-names = "clkctrl";
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> ... which is currently not present.
>>>
>>> Hmm is that not the "fck" clkctrl clock we have already in
>>> the dts files for the interconnect target modules?
>>
>> Oh okay, yeah, we could parse that one, but currently it is not done, and is
>> not present for everything either I believe.
>>
>>> We can also use pdata callbacks to pass the clock node if
>>> needed. But I guess I don't quite still understand what we
>>> are missing :)
>>
>> So, what is missing is the glue logic only from the hwmod codebase. Right
>> now this is not supported but should be relatively trivial thing to add if
>> we really want to do this.
> 
> OK let's think about this a bit for v4.19 then.
> 

I am not sure what the conclusion is. Should I try removing the
clkctrl_offsets, clkdm_name, and main_clk?

Thanks,
Faiz