Re: [PATCH RFC v5 2/2] clk: Add handling of clk parent and rate assigned from DT
From: Tero Kristo
Date: Fri May 23 2014 - 02:38:22 EST
On 05/23/2014 04:34 AM, Mike Turquette wrote:
Quoting Sylwester Nawrocki (2014-04-11 05:25:49)
+==Assigned clock parents and rates==
+
+Some platforms require static initial configuration of parts of the clocks
+controller. Such a configuration can be specified in a clock consumer node
+through clock-parents and clock-rates DT properties. The former should
+contain a list of parent clocks in form of phandle and clock specifier pairs,
+the latter the list of assigned clock frequency values (one cell each).
+To skip setting parent or rate of a clock its corresponding entry should be
+set to 0, or can be omitted if it is not followed by any non-zero entry.
+
+ uart@a000 {
+ compatible = "fsl,imx-uart";
+ reg = <0xa000 0x1000>;
+ ...
+ clocks = <&clkcon 0>, <&clkcon 3>;
+ clock-names = "baud", "mux";
+
+ clock-parents = <0>, <&pll 1>;
+ clock-rates = <460800>;
Is this the input frequency or serial baud rate? Looks like a baud
rate, but the clock framework needs input (to the uart) frequency. I
would say this should be clock-frequency and specify the max baud rate
as is being done with i2c bindings. The uart driver should know how to
convert between input clock freq and baud rate.
This UART example is not quite representative for the issues I have been
trying to address with this patch set. There is a need to set (an initial)
input clock frequency. E.g. in case of multimedia devices there may be
a need to set clock parent and frequency of an input clock to multiple IP
blocks, so they are clocked synchronously and data is carried properly
across a whole processing chain. Thus there may not be even clock output
in an IP block, but still input clock needs to be set. IIUC there is
similar issue with audio, where it is difficult to calculate the clock
frequencies/determine parent clocks in individual drivers algorithmically.
+ };
+
+In this example the pll is set as parent of "mux" clock and frequency
of "baud"
+clock is specified as 460800 Hz.
I don't really like clock-parents. The parent information is part of
the clock source, not the consumer.
I'm not sure we must always consider the parent information as property
of a clock source. If for example we expose a structure like below as
single clock object, supporting clock gating, parent and frequency
setting the parent setting is still accessible from within a device
driver.
The design of the ccf implementation certainly allows one to hide
individually addressable/configurable clock nodes within a single struct
clk. But should we? I have always maintained that a clock driver should
enumerate clocks in the same way that the data sheet or technical
reference manual states. I did make a recent exception[1], but that is
going to be rolled back after the coordinated clock rate changes land in
mainline.
And clock parent selection may depend on a system configuration
not immediately obvious from within a single device driver perspective.
MUX
,-------. DIVIDER GATE
common clk source 1 -->|--. | ,--------. ,--------.
| \ | | | | |
common clk source 2 -->|- '--|-->| |-->| |--> consumer
... | | | | | |
common clk source N -->|- | '--------' '--------'
'-------'
We've somewhat decided against having every single clock defined in DT
and rather only describe a clock controller with leaf clocks to
devices. That is not a hard rule, but for complex clock trees that is
the norm. Doing something like this will require all levels of the
clock tree to be described. You may have multiple layers of parents
that have to be configured correctly. How are you configuring the rest
of the tree?
I believe even clock controllers where clocks are represented as flat
array often describe the clock tree entirely by parenthood, the tree
structure is just not obvious from the DT binding.
In addition, there seems to be appearing more and more clock controller
DT bindings describing their clocks individually.
I've been discouraging these per-clock node bindings in favor of the
per-controller node style.
+Configuring a clock's parent and rate through the device node that uses
+the clock can be done only for clocks that have a single user. Specifying
+conflicting parent or rate configuration in multiple consumer nodes for
+a shared clock is forbidden.
+
+Configuration of common clocks, which affect multiple consumer devices
+can be specified in a dedicated 'assigned-clocks' subnode of a clock
+provider node, e.g.:
This seems like a work-around due to having clock-parents in the
consumer node. If (I'm not convinced we should) we have a binding for
parent config, it needs to be a single binding that works for both
cases.
When this issue was first raised during an ARM kernel summit it was
proposed to add 'assigned' prefix to DT properties for such bindings.
Yes, I like the "assigned-" prefix.
How about separate properties for the default clock configuration,
e.g. assigned-clocks/assigned-clock-parents/assigned-clock-rates ?
So a clock provider would look like:
clkcon {
...
#clock-cells = <1>;
assigned-clocks = <&clkcon 16>, <&clkcon 17>;
assigned-clock-parents = <0>, <&clkcon 1>;
assigned-clock-rates = <200000>;
};
And a consumer device node:
uart@a000 {
compatible = "fsl,imx-uart";
reg = <0xa000 0x1000>;
...
clocks = <&clkcon 0>;
clock-names = "baud";
assigned-clocks = <&clkcon 3>, <&clkcon 0>;
assigned-clock-parents = <&pll 1>;
assigned-clock-rates = <0>, <460800>;
};
It looks like this idea was dropped for v6. Can we revisit it? Take a
look at Tero's example implementation for OMAP using this binding:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg104705.html
There is a bogus "default-clocks" node made solely for storing this info
within the OMAP PRCM clock provider node. This is basically faking a
clock consumer. I think with the proposed solution above Tero could have
avoided that node entirely and done the following:
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi
index 649b5cd..e3ff1a7 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4.dtsi
@@ -145,6 +145,11 @@
cm2_clocks: clocks {
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
+
+ assigned-clocks = <&abe_dpll_refclk_mux_ck>,
+ <&dpll_usb_ck>, <&dpll_abe_ck>;
+ assigned-clock-parents = <&sys_32k_ck>;
+ assigned-clock-rates = <0>, <960000000>, <98304000>;
};
cm2_clockdomains: clockdomains {
Tero, what do you think?
Yeah, if we can avoid having a dummy node someplace, it is always
better. Only issue might be the initialization order, this was the
reason I created the dummy node if I recall right. But I guess we can
just scan the clock provider nodes second time at a later phase of boot
(or just store the default info for later use.)
-Tero
Regards,
Mike
[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/cpufreq/msg10071.html
--
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/