Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] ARM: OMAP4: clock: Add device tree support forAUXCLKs

[Roger Quadros]

On 04/05/2013 06:58 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> [130405 03:44]:
>> On 04/04/2013 07:41 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> * Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxx> [130404 00:39]:
>>>> On 04/04/2013 02:42 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>> For v3.10, let's just make sure that USB works with DT as then
>>> after v3.10 we can make omap4 DT only and get rid of estimated
>>> 7K lines of code and data. I guess this is the last piece missing
>>> for that, or are we also missing something else?
>>
>> For panda we just need a way to map the auxclk to the USB PHY device
>> and the relevant dts data to get USB host working with DT.
>> Beagle USB host should work already with DT without any changes.
>>
>>>
>>> Can't you set up a clock alias for your device so it can find the
>>> auxclk when requesting it with the dev entry?
>>>
>>
>> which clock is mapped to which PHY device depends on board design
>> and that cannot be per-determined at one place. This information
>> needs to come from the board.dts file.
> 
> OK that makes sense.
>  
>> There was an earlier attempt to provide a way of building clock aliases
>> at runtime from device tree [1], but the current approach is way better
>>
>> [1]
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/3/12/241
>>
>>> For the DT clock driver if needed for v3.10, how about just do a
>>> minimal drivers/clock/omap/ that uses the standard binding?
>>> Then that driver can just do clk_get() from cclock44xx_data.c
>>
>> I don't understand how to do it and why it is better than the current
>> approach.
> 
> Well your approach is fine as a first step moving all the clock
> code, but it needs to be a real driver under drivers/clock/omap.
> And the DT binding needs to stay the same for the driver(s) in the
> long term as we start moving clocks to DT + /lib/firmware.

The code needs to be there were the clock structs are defined.
Currently they are in arch/arm/mach-omap2/cclock44xx_data.c for OMAP4.

> 
> If this all is too late for v3.10, I suggest you just set up the
> right clock alias for panda with machine_is_compatible flag in
> board-generic.c so we get EHCI working with DT for v3.10. Then
> it's easy to to deal with it properly for v3.11.

OK, let's do it this way for Panda for 3.10.

> 
>> How can that driver do clk_get() from cclock44xx_data.c?
>> from where does it get the clk_id to pass into clk_get()?
> 
> Can't you just use the clock name there to get it?

In device tree we don't pass around clock names. You can either get
a phandle or an index to the clock.

e.g. Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/imx31-clock.txt

>  
>>> for now? And then later on we'll just move all the clocks to a
>>> combination of DT + /lib/firmware.
>>
>> What is the benefit of moving clock data to /lib/firmware? We could
>> as well just move it to DT only, no?
> 
> DT only clocks option is naturally available with this too. It
> just gets easily inefficient with such a huge number of clocks.
>  

OK.
>>>> e.g. auxclk are required to be specified in DT nodes for USB PHY.
>>>> Without this we can't get USB host working on Panda.
>>>
>>> OK. So if the USB PHY has a dev entry, can't you just set up a
>>> clock alias in struct omap_clk omap44xx_clks[] for it?
>>
>> I've explained why this can't be done above.
> 
> Yes I understand now, the clock is board specific. 
>   
>>>> As Rajendra points out, it seems moving entire clock data to DT is not
>>>> going to happen soon. So this is the simplistic way things can work.
>>>
>>> Right but seems like we can get started there without moving
>>> them all at once.
>>>
>> What if we provide a complete clock list instead of only auxclks in
>> dt_clks[]?
>>
>> This approach is similar to arch/arm/mach-imx/clk-imx35.c
>>
>> Device drivers can then use them as they migrate to DT. Then later
>> we could migrate clock data to DT, without impacting device drivers.
> 
> As long as the binding stays the same in the long run too, this
> clock remapping approach is just fine as a starting point. And
> the driver needs to go to drivers/clock/omap. But in the long run
> we just want to get the huge amounts static data out of the kernel
> for clocks and hwmod data to fix things for good.

In that case we need to identify what clocks need to be supported.
If it is all (~200) of them, is this method good enough?

cheers,
-roger
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/