Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: mailbox: qcom,apcs: Add separate node for clock-controller

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 03:17:33PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> wOn Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 01:51:16PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2025-06-10 20:31:57)
> > > I'm still sceptical here.
> > > 
> > > In the first snippet above, we describe a single IP block which provides
> > > mailboxes and clocks.
> > > 
> > > In the second snippet we're saying that the IP block is a mailbox, and
> > > then it somehow have a subcomponent which is a clock provider.
> > > 
> > > It seems to me that we're choosing the second option because it better
> > > fits the Linux implementation, rather than that it would be a better
> > > representation of the hardware. To the point that we can't even describe
> > > the register range of the subcomponent...
> > > 
> > 
> > Agreed. Don't workaround problems in the kernel by changing the binding
> > to have sub-nodes.
> 
> I can describe the register range for the subcomponent if you prefer
> (it's reg = <0x50 0xc>; within the parent component). That would be easy
> to add.
> 
> Your more fundamental concern (working around problems in the kernel by
> changing the binding) is a more tricky and subtle one. I had exactly the
> same thought when I started making this patch series. However, if you
> start looking more closely you will see that this is much easier said
> than done. I tried to explain the problem already a few times (in the
> cover letter, the commit messages and responses to this series), but let
> me try again. Perhaps in different words it will become more
> understandable.
> 
> Just for clarity, let's take the current device tree description again:
> 
> 	apcs1_mbox: mailbox@b011000 {
> 		compatible = "qcom,msm8939-apcs-kpss-global", "syscon";
> 		reg = <0x0b011000 0x1000>;
> 		#mbox-cells = <1>;
> 		clocks = <&a53pll_c1>, <&gcc GPLL0_VOTE>, <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_XO_CLK_SRC>;
> 		clock-names = "pll", "aux", "ref";
> 		#clock-cells = <0>;
> 	};
> 
> Clearly this is a mailbox (#mbox-cells) and a clock controller
> (#clock-cells). In the hardware these are stuffed into one register
> region, but they don't have anything to do with each other. In
> particular, the specified clocks are only used by the clock controller.
> They are not used or related in any way to the mailbox component.
> 
> We need to have the mailbox available early to proceed with booting. The
> clock controller can probe anytime later. The &rpmcc clock required by
> the clock controller depends on having the mailbox available.
> 
> In Linux, I cannot get the mailbox driver to probe as long as the &rpmcc
> clock is specified inside this device tree node (or by using
> post-init-providers, but see [1]). This is not something I can fix in
> the driver. The "problem in the kernel" you are referring to is
> essentially "fw_devlink". Independent of the device-specific bindings we
> define, it is built with the assumption that resources specified in a
> device tree node are required to get a device functioning.
> 
> We usually want this behavior, but it doesn't work in this case. I argue
> this is because we describe *two* devices as part of a *single* device
> tree node. By splitting the *two* devices into *two* device tree nodes,
> it is clear which resources belong to which device, and fw_devlink can
> function correctly.
> 

We have many cases where there are cyclic links in the DeviceTree
representation - clock controllers depending on clock providers that
depend on the same clock controller, regulators being supplied by
regulators of the same PMIC etc.

>From a DeviceTree point of view this looks quite similar, but from an
implementation perspective this is simpler than those examples - we
don't even need to do async resolution per resource here.

> You argue this is a problem to be solved in the kernel. In practice,
> this would mean one of the following:
> 
>  - Remove fw_devlink from Linux.
>  - Start adding device-specific quirks into the generic fw_devlink code.
>    Hardcode device links that cannot be deferred from the device tree
>    because our hardware description is too broad.
> 
> Both of these are not really desirable, right?
> 

fw_devlink is supposed to optimize the probe order, it must not prevent
the system from booting just because there is cyclic dependencies
between IP-blocks.

If fw_devlink is authoritative in determining which order things must
happen, then it needs to deal with these things.

> I don't think there is a good way around making the hardware description
> more precise by giving the two devices separate device tree nodes. There
> are many different options for modelling these, and I would be fine with
> all of them if you think one of them fits better:
> 
> Top-level siblings:
> 
> 	apcs1_mbox: mailbox@b011008 {
> 		compatible = "qcom,msm8939-apcs-mbox";
> 		reg = <0x0b011008 0x4>;
> 		#mbox-cells = <1>;
> 	};
> 
> 	apcs1_clk: clock-controller@b011050 {
> 		compatible = "qcom,msm8939-apcs-clk";
> 		reg = <0x0b011050 0xc>;
> 		clocks = <&a53pll_c1>, <&gcc GPLL0_VOTE>, <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_XO_CLK_SRC>;
> 		clock-names = "pll", "aux", "ref";
> 		#clock-cells = <0>;		
> 	};

This doesn't scale to any example where you have more than single
resources laid out in a convenient order.

> 
> Top-level syscon wrapper with two children:
> 
> 	syscon@b011000 {
> 		compatible = "qcom,msm8939-apcs-kpss-global", "syscon";
> 		reg = <0x0b011000 0x1000>;
> 		#adress-cells = <1>;
> 		#size-cells = <1>;
> 		ranges = <0 0x0b011000 0x1000>;
> 
> 		apcs1_mbox: mailbox@8 {
> 			compatible = "qcom,msm8939-apcs-mbox";
> 			reg = <0x8 0x4>;
> 			#mbox-cells = <1>;
> 		};
> 
> 		apcs1_clk: clock-controller@50 {
> 			compatible = "qcom,msm8939-apcs-clk";
> 			reg = <0x0b011050 0xc>;
> 			clocks = <&a53pll_c1>, <&gcc GPLL0_VOTE>, <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_XO_CLK_SRC>;
> 			clock-names = "pll", "aux", "ref";
> 			#clock-cells = <0>;
> 		};
> 	};

This is clearly implementation-driven. Until fw_devlink "forced" you
into this model we considered APCS KPSS global to be one entity.

> 
> Mailbox as parent (what I did in this series):
> 
> 	apcs1_mbox: mailbox@b011000 {
> 		compatible = "qcom,msm8939-apcs-kpss-global", "syscon";
> 		reg = <0x0b011000 0x1000>;
> 		#mbox-cells = <1>;
> 
> 		apcs1_clk: clock-controller {
> 			clocks = <&a53pll_c1>, <&gcc GPLL0_VOTE>, <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_XO_CLK_SRC>;
> 			clock-names = "pll", "aux", "ref";
> 			#clock-cells = <0>;
> 		};
> 	};

This is just a pragmatic variant of above.

> 
> Maybe it makes more sense with this explanation and the other options.
> Let me know what you think!
> 

Regards,
Bjorn

> Thanks,
> Stephan
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/aC-AqDa8cjq2AYeM@xxxxxxxxxx/