Re: [PATCH 7/7] clk: qcom: gcc: Add support for Global Clock Controller

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:07:23PM +0530, Taniya Das wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/17/2025 3:38 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 17/07/2025 11:57, Abel Vesa wrote:
> >> On 25-07-16 20:50:17, Pankaj Patil wrote:
> >>> From: Taniya Das <taniya.das@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> Add support for Global clock controller for Glymur platform.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Taniya Das <taniya.das@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Patil <pankaj.patil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig      |   10 +
> >>>  drivers/clk/qcom/Makefile     |    1 +
> >>>  drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-glymur.c | 8623 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>  3 files changed, 8634 insertions(+)
> >>>  create mode 100644 drivers/clk/qcom/gcc-glymur.c
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig
> >>> index 051301007aa6..1d9e8c6aeaed 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig
> >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/Kconfig
> >>> @@ -645,6 +645,16 @@ config SAR_GPUCC_2130P
> >>>  	  Say Y if you want to support graphics controller devices and
> >>>  	  functionality such as 3D graphics.
> >>>  
> >>> +config SC_GCC_GLYMUR
> >>
> >> Wait, are we going back to this now?
> >>
> >> X Elite had CLK_X1E80100_GCC, so maybe this should be CLK_GLYMUR_GCC
> >> then.
> > 
> > 
> > Yeah, the SC is meaningless here, unless you call it CLK_SC8480XP_GCC,
> > so the authors need to decide on one naming. Not mixtures..
> > 
> > 
> Glymur follows the "SC" naming convention, and historically we've
> adhered to the format: "SC/SM/SDX/SA_<Clock Controller>_<Target Name or
> Chipset>". This structure has helped maintain consistency and clarity
> across platforms.
> 

The platform isn't named SCGLYMUR - which is where the SC prefix would
come from.

I'm not sure there's a benefit to quickly be able to know if a clock
controller is for a SC, SM, SA, MSM, etc platform. Please let me know if
I'm missing something.

> The case of X1E80100 appears to be an exception—likely influenced by its
> unique naming convention at the time.
> 
> That said, I’d prefer to stay aligned with the established convention
> used for earlier chipsets to preserve continuity. I’d appreciate hearing
> your thoughts on this as well.
> 

We're changing the naming model completely, so there is no continuity.
In fact the Hamoa "exception" would suite us very well for Glymur.

And look how nicely the CLK_X1E80100_* entries are grouped together in
the Kconfig.

Change to CLK_GLYMUR_* please.

Regards,
Bjorn