Re: [PATCH 11/19] clk: samsung: exynos5433: Add clocks for CMU_BUS{0|1|2} domains

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Friday 28 November 2014 00:17:40 Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> 
> But, "fixed-clock" pass all properties from dt file to
> driver/clk/clk-fixed-rate.c.
> and "fixed-clock" driver has not the data dependent on h/w. e.g.,
> clock offset, parent clock.

The parent clocks would obviously have to be provided in DT if you
do this. I'm not sure what you mean with clock offsets. What would
it take to describe that?

> >> >
> >> > > >     clock-controller@113600000 {
> >> > > >             reg = <0 0x113600000 0 0x1000>;
> >> > > >             compatible = "samsung,exynos5433-cmu";
> >> > > >             #clock-cells = <1>;
> >> > > >     };
> >> > > >
> >> > > >     clock-controller@114800000 {
> >> > > >             reg = <0 0x114800000 0 0x1000>;
> >> > > >             compatible = "samsung,exynos5433-cmu";
> >> > > >             #clock-cells = <1>;
> >> > > >     };
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The code will just map the local registers for each instance and then
> >> > > > provide the clocks of the right instance when asked for it.
> >> > >
> >> > > Each clock domain has not the same mux/divider/clock. So, just one
> >> > compatible
> >> > > string could not support all of clock domains.
> >> >
> >> > What are the specific differences?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > I'm not sure that difference among clock domains because I think it is
> >> dependent on the opinion of architect of SoC.
> >>
> >> cmu_bus0/1/2 are much similar. Just cmu_bus2 has one more mux/gate clock
> >> than cmu_bus0/1.
> >
> > Yes, that's what I mean. You can simply model that extra mux/gate
> > in the driver, as long as nothing ever tries to access the clock.
> 
> If only use one compatible to support CMU_BUSx domains,
> I would implement it as following with Sylwester's guide.
> 
> To Sylwester, Tomaz,
> Are you agree following method to support CMU_BUSx domains
> by using one compatible string?


> +#define bus_clk_regs(num)                \
> +static unsigned long bus##num_clk_regs[] __initdata = {    \
> +    DIV_BUS,                    \
> +    DIV_STAT_BUS,                    \
> +    ENABLE_ACLK_BUS,                \
> +    ENABLE_PCLK_BUS,                \
> +    ENABLE_IP_BUS0,                    \
> +    ENABLE_IP_BUS1,                    \
> +};                            \

I don't understand why you would need a macro here. Isn't this constant
data that you can pass into multiple devices? The use of macros
definitely makes it worse than the original patch.

> +#define bus_div_clks(num)                        \
> +static struct samsung_div_clock bus##num_div_clks[] __initdata = {    \
> +    /* DIV_BUS */                            \
> +    DIV(CLK_DIV_PCLK_BUS##num_133, "div_pclk_bus"#num"_133",    \
> +            "aclk_bus"#num"_400", DIV_BUS##num, 0, 3),    \
> +};                                    \

To illustrate my point further: CLK_DIV_PCLK_BUS0/1/2 are all the
same, and so are DIV_BUS0/1/2, so you should not need to duplicate
the definitions at all but just call them 'CLK_DIV_PCLK_BUS'
and 'DIV_BUS'.

For the "aclk_bus"#num"_400" and "div_pclk_bus"#num"_133" strings,
I don't know what they refer to. Are you sure they have to be unique?

> +
> +#define bus_clk_regs(0)
> +#define bus_div_clks(0)
> +#define bus_gate_clks(0)
> +
> +#define bus_clk_regs(1)
> +#define bus_div_clks(1)
> +#define bus_gate_clks(1)
> +
> +static void __init exynos5433_cmu_bus_init(struct device_node *np)
> +{
> +    void __iomem *reg_base_bus0, *reg_base_bus1;
> +
> +    reg_base_bus0 = of_iomap(np, 0);
> +    reg_base_bus1 = of_iomap(np, 1);
> +
> +    bus0_ctx = samsung_clk_init(np, reg_base_bus0, BUS0_NR_CLKS);
> +    bus1_ctx = samsung_clk_init(np, reg_base_bus0, BUS0_NR_CLKS);
> +
> +    samsung_clk_register_div(bus0_ctx, bus0_div_clks,
> +                    ARRAY_SIZE(bus0_div_clks));
> +    samsung_clk_register_gate(bus0_ctx, bus0_gate_clks,
> +                    ARRAY_SIZE(bus0_gate_clks));
> +    samsung_clk_register_div(bus1_ctx, bus1_div_clks,
> +                    ARRAY_SIZE(bus1_div_clks));
> +    samsung_clk_register_gate(bus1_ctx, bus1_gate_clks,
> +                    ARRAY_SIZE(bus1_gate_clks));
> +
> +    samsung_clk_of_provider(np, bus0_ctx);
> +    samsung_clk_of_provider(np, bus1_ctx);
> +
> +}
> +CLK_OF_DECLARE(exynos5433_cmu_bus, "samsung,exynos5433-cmu-bus",
> +        exynos5433_cmu_bus_init);

This isn't helpful either: you really have two instances and should
not merge them together into one device node. This should look like

static void __init exynos5433_cmu_bus_init(struct device_node *np)
{
    void __iomem *reg_base_bus;

    reg_base_bus = of_iomap(np, 0);

    bus_ctx = samsung_clk_init(np, reg_base_bus, BUS_NR_CLKS);

    samsung_clk_register_div(bus_ctx, bus_div_clks,
                    ARRAY_SIZE(bus_div_clks));
    samsung_clk_register_gate(bus_ctx, bus_gate_clks,
                    ARRAY_SIZE(bus_gate_clks));

    samsung_clk_of_provider(np, bus0_ctx);
}

and get called three times.

	Arnd
--
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/