Re: [RFC 17/17] clk: zynq: remove call to of_clk_init

From: Sebastian Hesselbarth
Date: Fri Aug 23 2013 - 13:44:16 EST

On 08/23/13 19:19, SÃren Brinkmann wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:30:18AM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
On 08/23/13 02:59, SÃren Brinkmann wrote:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 05:26:47PM -0700, SÃren Brinkmann wrote:
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 04:04:31AM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
With arch/arm calling of_clk_init(NULL) from time_init(), we can now
remove it from corresponding drivers/clk code.

I think that would break Zynq.
If I see this correctly you call of_clk_init() from common code,
_before_ the SOC specific time init function is called.
The problem is, that we have code setting up a global pointer which is
required by zynq_clk_setup() which is triggered when of_clk_init() is
called.
[ ... ]
thanks for looking into this. I also had a look at the files in
question. Based on Steffen's proposal, I prepared a diff that should do
the trick. It moves zynq_slcr_init() to early_init, instead of reusing
another hook that has magic cow powers (it calls irqchip_init that zynq
also wants sooner or later).

Also, it removes zynq_clock_init() and let zynq_clk_setup() map the
register itself by finding the node and use of_iomap(). I realized that
clock registers are quite separated within slcr, so you can consider
to have your own node for the clk-provider. As Steffen is proposing
this but mentioned incompatible DT changes, I chose that intermediate
step above.

It would be great, if you test the diff and prepare a patch out of
it, that I pick-up in the patch set. That way, we also have your
Signed-off on it.

I looked into this. Looks like init_early() happens to early. I suspect
slab is missing to make zynq_slcr_init() work. So, I moved it into
init_irq(). Is there any init_call() type which is called at the correct
time?

SÃren,

I mistakenly assumed init_early is after mm, so of course my proposal
does not work as it should. I am fine with moving it to init_irq() until
you find the best solution (or until we have the same "mess" with
default init_irq hook).

I looked briefly into syscon and regmap, and that does actually look
promising and to really fix this mess, I guess we have to wait a little
until Steffen finishes his work on it.

IIRC, both syscon and regmap will require you to have devices ready.
I haven't followed all recent discussions about early device
registration. Anyway, it will not help much in the current approach
to get rid of custom .init_timer and maybe .init_irq later.

To facilitate Sebastian's series I came up with the patch below.
The problem I have is, I do not really want the clkc to map the
registers. They are in the SLCR and the SLCR driver is doing it, hence
we should work with what that driver provides - which ideally would be
based on regmap and syscon, but we're not there yet. Hence I somehow
need to pass the SLCR pointer to the clkc. To avoid accessing the global
pointer directly I kept the zynq_clock_init() routine which is called
from zynq_slcr_init().

For this patch set I'd be fine with the proposal below. For the short
run, you could consider to hide register accesses to slcr by providing
zynq_slcr_readl/writel instead of passing just the base address.

But again, that will require either custom .init_time or .init_irq
to set up slcr before clocks.

That is the best I could come up with quickly and w/o investing a lot of
time to figure out the regmap and syscon stuff, which seems to be handled
by Steffen already, anyway.
It is essentially a stripped down version of Sebastian's proposal.

If there are no general objections, I take that one for the real patch
set.

Sebastian

--
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/