Re: [PATCH 0/5] Add Mediatek MT8173 subsystem clocks support

[Sascha Hauer]

On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 05:59:12PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 06/05, James Liao wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> > 
> > On Thu, 2015-06-04 at 14:02 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > On 05/29, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > > Yes. I previously got the impression that the subsystem clocks are not
> > > > directly associated to the larbs, but needed to be handled by the larb
> > > > code due to some side effect. Now that I saw that the larbs are directly
> > > > in the subsystem register space it all makes sense.
> > > > 
> > > > Note that the way Mediatek SoCs are designed around sub modules is bit
> > > > unusual and does not fit very well in the Linux directory structure.
> > > > Normally SoCs have a single clocks controller which controls all clocks
> > > > in the SoC. Then you often have a reset controller providing reset lines
> > > > in the SoC. In this case it's clear that the clk driver goes to
> > > > drivers/clk/, the reset controller driver to drivers/reset/. Mediatek
> > > > SoCs instead have several blocks, each with its own clock and reset
> > > > controller. Splitting each block up into parts in drivers/clk/ and
> > > > drivers/reset/ leads to quite a code fragmentation.
> > > > This is my opinion, it would be great to hear something from others.
> > > > Matthias? I'd like to avoid running into a direction that is not
> > > > acceptable in the end.
> > > 
> > > We already have drivers registering clocks and resets under
> > > drivers/clk, so it's not unheard of. An alternative solution is
> > > to make child devices for the clock part and the reset part at
> > > runtime in the toplevel driver for the vencsys device (don't do
> > > any sort of DT description for this) and use regmap to mediate
> > > the register accesses and locking. That way we can put the clk
> > > driver in drivers/clk/, the reset driver in drivers/reset, etc.
> > > so that logically related code is grouped.
> > 
> > I have a question about the alternative way you mentioned. Currently
> > clock providers and consumers describe what clocks they will provide /
> > consume in device tree. If we don't describe vencsys clocks in device
> > tree, how to get vencsys clocks for drivers that need to control them?
> > 
> 
> Perhaps an example would be best. In DT we would have:
> 
> 	vencsys: vencsys@10000 {
> 		compatible = "mtk,vencsys";
> 		reg = <0x10000 0x1000>;
> 		#clock-cells = <1>;
> 		#reset-cells = <1>;
> 	};
> 
> 	myconsumer@12000 {
> 		compatible = "mtk,vencsys";
> 		reg = <0x12000 0x100>;
> 		clocks = <&vencsys 10>;
> 		clock-names = "core";
> 	};
> 
> 	(Or are the consumers only children of the subsystem?
> 	It's not clear to me)
> 
> And then in the mtk,vencsys driver we would create a platform
> device named something like "mtk-vencsys-clk" and assign the
> of_node of the device to be the of_node that is assigned to the
> mtk,vencsys device.
> 
> 	static int vencsys_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> 	{
> 		int ret;
> 		struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> 		struct platform_device *clk_pdev;
> 
> 		clk_pdev = platform_device_alloc("mtk-vencsys-clk", -1);
> 		clk_pdev->dev.of_node = of_node;
> 		ret = platform_device_add(clk_pdev);
> 		if (ret)
> 			return ret;
> 	}
> 
> Then we could put a mtk-vencsys-clk driver in drivers/clk/ that
> does the clk driver part...
> 
> 	static int clk_vencsys_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> 	{
> 		int ret;
> 		struct device_node *np = pdev->dev.of_node;
> 		struct regmap *regmap;
> 
> 		ret = of_clk_add_provider(np, of_clk_src_onecell_get, ..);
> 		if (ret)
> 			return ret;
> 
> 		regmap = dev_get_regmap(pdev->dev.parent, NULL);
> 
> 	}
> 
> And similar things could be done for the reset driver.

The problem I see with this approach is that we scatter the code for a
otherwise simple driver over a bunch of directories. We would have

drivers/clk/mediatek/vencsys.c
drivers/reset/mediatek/vencsys.c
drivers/soc/mediatek/vencsys.c

The same must be added for vdecsys, imgsys and vencltsys. That will make
12 drivers and three maintainers for 12 registers.  I think this will be
a pain to maintain, hence my suggestion to put the vencsys code into a
single file and not split this up into more subsystem specific files.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
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/