Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] clk: mediatek: Add subsystem clocks of MT8173

[James Liao]

On Wed, 2015-07-01 at 22:54 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:58 AM, James Liao <jamesjj.liao@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +static struct mtk_gate_regs cg_regs_4_8_0 = {
> 
> These should all be:
> 
> static const struct mtk_gate_regs ...

OK, I'll fix it.

> > +       .set_ofs = 0x0004,
> > +       .clr_ofs = 0x0008,
> > +       .sta_ofs = 0x0000,
> > +};
> > +
> > +#define GATE_IMG(_id, _name, _parent, _shift) {                        \
> > +               .id = _id,                                      \
> > +               .name = _name,                                  \
> > +               .parent_name = _parent,                         \
> > +               .regs = &cg_regs_4_8_0,                         \
> > +               .shift = _shift,                                \
> > +               .ops = &mtk_clk_gate_ops_setclr,                \
> > +       }
> > +
> > +static struct mtk_gate img_clks[] __initdata = {
> 
> These should all be:
> 
> static const ... __initconst = {

OK, I'll fix it.

> > +
> > +static void __init mtk_imgsys_init(struct device_node *node)
> > +{
> > +       struct clk_onecell_data *clk_data;
> > +       void __iomem *base;
> 
> I don't think you need base for any of these.
> mtk_clk_register_gates() will use syscon_node_to_regmap() to lookup
> the regmap by itself.

OK, I'll remove it.

> > +       int r;
> > +
> > +       base = of_iomap(node, 0);
> > +       if (!base) {
> > +               pr_err("%s(): ioremap failed\n", __func__);
> > +               return;
> > +       }
> > +
> > +       clk_data = mtk_alloc_clk_data(CLK_IMG_NR_CLK);
> 
> Unrelated to this patch, but:
> I think each clock node should statically declare its
> clk_onecell_data, and pass it to mtk_alloc_clk_data().
> mtk_alloc_clk_data() should then just allocate and initialize the clks array.

Is there any different from allocating clk_onecell_data and clks arary
dynamically?


> >  /* APMIXED_SYS */
> >
> > -#define CLK_APMIXED_ARMCA15PLL 1
> > -#define CLK_APMIXED_ARMCA7PLL  2
> > +#define CLK_APMIXED_ARMCA15PLL         1
> > +#define CLK_APMIXED_ARMCA7PLL          2
> >  #define CLK_APMIXED_MAINPLL            3
> >  #define CLK_APMIXED_UNIVPLL            4
> >  #define CLK_APMIXED_MMPLL              5
> > @@ -232,4 +232,91 @@
> >  #define CLK_PERI_UART3_SEL             39
> >  #define CLK_PERI_NR_CLK                        40
> 
> Why do we count up from 1 instead of 0?
> This means that for each clock-controller:
>   clk_onecell_data->clk[0] == ERR_PTR(-ENOENT)

It's a legacy implementation. I think it doesn't matter for function or
size in this implementation. We may change clock index to start from 0
in next SoC clock implementation.


Best regards,

James


--
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/