On 02/01/2018 07:19 PM, JeffyChen wrote:
index 2098f7732264..33dd853359fa 100644
@@ -14,6 +14,13 @@ Required properties:
"single-master" device, and needs no
to associate with its master device. See:
+- clocks : A list of master clocks requires for the IOMMU to be
+ by the host CPU. The number of clocks depends on the
+ block and might as well be zero. See  for generic clock
+ bindings description.
Hardware blocks don't have a variable number of clock connections.
I think you underestimate the imagination of hardware designers. :)
Learned long ago to never do that. If there are 2 ways to do
something, they will find a 3rd way.
For Rockchip IOMMU, there is a set of clocks, which all need to be
enabled for IOMMU register access to succeed. The clocks are not
directly fed to the IOMMU, but they are needed for the various buses
and intermediate blocks on the way to the IOMMU to work.
The binding should describe the clock connections, not what clocks a
driver needs (currently). It sounds like a lack of managing bus clocks
In any case, the binding must be written so it can be verified. If you
can have any number of clocks with any names, there's no point in
the rockchip IOMMU is part of the master block in hardware, so it needs
to control the master's power domain and some of the master's clocks
when access it's registers.
and the number of clocks needed here, might be different between each
IOMMUs(according to which master block it belongs), it's a little like
our power domain:
i'm not sure how to describe this correctly, is it ok use something like
"the same as it's master block"?
would it make sense to add a property to specify the master who owns the
iommu, and we can get all clocks(only some of those clocks are actually
needed) from it in the of_xlate()? and we can also reuse the clock-names
of that master to build clk_bulk_data and log errors in clk_bulk_get.
iommu mailing list