Re: [PATCH v4 3/6] media: sun6i: Update default CSI_SCLK for A64

[Jagan Teki]

On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 3:37 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 09:08:17PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 8:53 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 05:03:17PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately A64 CSI cannot work with default CSI_SCLK rate.
> > > >
> > > > A64 BSP is using 300MHz clock rate as default csi clock,
> > > > so sun6i_csi require explicit change to update CSI_SCLK
> > > > rate to 300MHZ for A64 SoC's.
> > > >
> > > > So, set the clk_mod to 300MHz only for A64.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jagan Teki <jagan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c | 5 +++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c b/drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c
> > > > index 9ff61896e4bb..91470edf7581 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/media/platform/sunxi/sun6i-csi/sun6i_csi.c
> > > > @@ -822,6 +822,11 @@ static int sun6i_csi_resource_request(struct sun6i_csi_dev *sdev,
> > > >               return PTR_ERR(sdev->clk_mod);
> > > >       }
> > > >
> > > > +     /* A64 require 300MHz mod clock to operate properly */
> > > > +     if (of_device_is_compatible(pdev->dev.of_node,
> > > > +                                 "allwinner,sun50i-a64-csi"))
> > > > +             clk_set_rate_exclusive(sdev->clk_mod, 300000000);
> > > > +
> > >
> > > If you're using clk_set_rate_exclusive, you need to put back the
> > > "exclusive" reference once you're not using the clock.
> > >
> > > Doing it here is not really optimal either, since you'll put a
> > > constraint on the system (maintaining that clock at 300MHz), while
> > > it's not in use.
> >
> > I think we can handle via clk_rate_exclusive_put for those errors
> > cases? If I'm not wrong
>
> Yes, but it's not only for the error case, it's also for the inactive
> case.

Yes, I will try to add this next version.