Re: [PATCH DNM RFC 14/16] clk: qcom: Enable clk-dvfs on SM8650

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 10/14/26 6:35 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 05:22:40PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 10/14/26 4:40 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 02:19:14PM +0200, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>>> From: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Make use of the clock-dvfs infrastructure and fill in the power
>>>> requirements for SM8650's clocks to ensure the hardware can operate in
>>>> accordance with the specification.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>  #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,sm8650-camcc.h>
>>>> +#include <dt-bindings/power/qcom,rpmhpd.h>
>>>
>>> I've commented to the cover letter. For me it feels like the layering
>>> violation.
>>
>> I understand. I still think it's okay given this is a driver only
>> for a specific SoC.
> 
> Then soon we will get MMRM submitted upstream, which (currently)
> randomly imports a set of the clock ids and asks consumers to talk to it
> using the same clock IDS from DT bindings. Doesn't sounds like a good
> idea.

MMRM is more or less clk-powercap. The data it grabs via DT (power
numbers) could as well be put into the clock driver here, in a
similar fashion.

>> [...]
>>
>>>> +static const struct qcom_clk_dvfs_data cam_cc_camnoc_axi_rt_clk_src_dvfs = {
>>>> +	.pd_indices = (const unsigned int[]) { DT_PMDOMAIN_MMCX, DT_PMDOMAIN_MXC },
>>>> +	.num_pd_indices = 2,
>>>> +	.rates = (const struct qcom_clk_dvfs_rate[]) {
>>>> +		{ 300000000, RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_LOW_SVS },
>>>> +		{ 400000000, RPMH_REGULATOR_LEVEL_SVS },
>>>
>>> And does it actually have the same vote on both MMCX and MXC? I'd need
>>> to check the clock tree.
>>
>> In this case the RCG needs VDD_MM and its direct child branch
>> needs MXC for the flipflops.
> 
> My question was "on the same level? Or on different levels? In the OPP
> tables we (should) have 1:1 between scaling PDs and PD votes. 

On the same level.

Konrad