Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] pwms: pwm-ti*: Get the clock from the PWMSS (parent)

[Sekhar Nori]

On Monday 11 April 2016 06:15 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Monday 11 April 2016 02:21 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Apr 2016, Franklin S Cooper Jr. wrote:
>>>> On 04/05/2016 01:08 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday 08 March 2016 06:53 AM, Franklin S Cooper Jr wrote:
>>>>>> The eCAP and ePWM doesn't have their own separate clocks. They simply
>>>>>> utilize the clock provided directly by the PWMSS. Therefore, they simply
>>>>>> need to grab a reference to their parent's clock.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Franklin S Cooper Jr <fcooper@xxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> So this assumes that eCAP and eHRPWM are always under the PWMSS
>>>>> umbrella. But on TI AM18x, thats not true. These IPs exist independently
>>>>> and receive functional clock from PLL sysclk outputs.
>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/pwm/pwm-tiecap.c   | 2 +-
>>>>>>  drivers/pwm/pwm-tiehrpwm.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/pwm-tiecap.c b/drivers/pwm/pwm-tiecap.c
>>>>>> index 616af76..9418159 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/pwm/pwm-tiecap.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/pwm-tiecap.c
>>>>>> @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int ecap_pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>>>      if (!pc)
>>>>>>          return -ENOMEM;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -    clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "fck");
>>>>>> +    clk = devm_clk_get(pdev->dev.parent, "fck");
>>>>>
>>>>> Even keeping the AM18x usecase aside, this seems to be pushing too much
>>>>> platform information into the driver. The "fck" is a valid connection id
>>>>> for the eCAP IP. Whether its valid for the parent device too is not
>>>>> something this driver should need to know.
>>>>>
>>>>> So it looks like what you need is for the clock hierarchy for the
>>>>> platform to have clocks for eHRPWM and eCAP derived out of PWMSS clock?
>>>>
>>>> So I believe this is a question on if we want to hide the minor
>>>> delta between AM18 vs AM335x, AM437x and AM57x/DRA7 in the driver
>>>> or within the DT.
>>>>
>>>> Note that handling this by defining new clocks in DT will then
>>>> result in older DTBs not working. I don't think its worth breaking
>>>> backwards compatibility for AM335x and AM437x DTBs for fixing support
>>>> for AM18 based SOCs. Especially since those SOCs haven't worked with
>>>> this driver for several years. By handling things within the driver rather
>>>> than DT we can atleast insure that we can get everything working while
>>>> avoiding breaking backwards compatibility.
>>>
>>> I agree with Sekhar that we shouldn't embed this parent clock quirk
>>> into the driver.
>>>
>>> Can you just define a new compatibility string such that the driver can be
>>> written with no embedded integration quirks?  Then add a workaround in the
>>> driver that will use pdev->dev.parent for the old (deprecated)
>>> compatibility string and log a warning to the kernel console that the DT
>>> needs to be updated.
>>
>> Thanks Paul! Although not sure if adding a new compatible for the IP is
>> the best way (since that would denote a different version of the IP).
>> How about checking for parent clock iff clk_get() on own device fails
>> and of_machine_is_compatible() matches the platforms where backward
>> compatibility needs to be maintained?
> 
> New compatible strings are acceptable.

Alright, thanks for clarifying that.

Regards,
Sekhar