Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] clk: mediatek: Add frequency hopping support

[Edward-JW Yang]

Hi AngeloGioacchino,

Thanks for the discussion.

On Thu, 2022-07-28 at 16:21 +0800, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> Il 28/07/22 06:37, Edward-JW Yang ha scritto:
> > Hi AngeloGioacchino,
> > 
> > Thanks for the advices.
> > 
> > On Thu, 2022-07-21 at 17:43 +0800, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > Il 20/07/22 15:51, Edward-JW Yang ha scritto:
> > > > Hi AngeloGioacchino,
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for all the advices and examples.
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2022-07-14 at 19:04 +0800, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > > > Il 06/07/22 15:07, Edward-JW Yang ha scritto:
> > > > > > On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 16:54 +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 6:09 PM AngeloGioacchino Del Regno
> > > > > > > <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Il 24/06/22 09:12, Edward-JW Yang ha scritto:
> > > > > > > > > Hi AngeloGioacchino,
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Thanks for all the advices.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2022-06-13 at 17:43 +0800, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Il 12/06/22 15:54, Johnson Wang ha scritto:
> > > > > > > > > > > Add frequency hopping support and spread spectrum clocking
> > > > > > > > > > > control for MT8186.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Edward-JW Yang <edward-jw.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Johnson Wang <johnson.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Before going on with the review, there's one important consideration:
> > > > > > > > > > the Frequency Hopping control is related to PLLs only (so, no other clock
> > > > > > > > > > types get in the mix).
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Checking the code, the *main* thing that we do here is initializing the
> > > > > > > > > > FHCTL by setting some registers, and we're performing the actual frequency
> > > > > > > > > > hopping operation in clk-pll, which is right but, at this point, I think
> > > > > > > > > > that the best way to proceed is to add the "FHCTL superpowers" to clk-pll
> > > > > > > > > > itself, instead of adding multiple new files and devicetree bindings that
> > > > > > > > > > are specific to the FHCTL itself.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > This would mean that the `fh-id` and `perms` params that you're setting in
> > > > > > > > > > the devicetree get transferred to clk-mt8186 (and hardcoded there), as to
> > > > > > > > > > extend the PLL declarations to include these two: that will also simplify
> > > > > > > > > > the driver so that you won't have to match names here and there.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Just an example:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >         PLL(CLK_APMIXED_CCIPLL, "ccipll", 0x0224, 0x0230, 0,
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > >             PLL_AO, 0, 22, 0x0228, 24, 0, 0, 0, 0x0228, 2, FHCTL_PERM_DBG_DUMP),
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Besides, there are another couple of reasons why you should do that instead,
> > > > > > > > > > of which:
> > > > > > > > > >       - The devicetree should be "generic enough", we shall not see the direct value
> > > > > > > > > >         to write to the registers in there (yet, perms assigns exactly that)
> > > > > > > > > >       - These values won't change on a per-device basis, I believe? They're SoC-related,
> > > > > > > > > >         not board-related, right?
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > In case they're board related (and/or related to TZ permissions), we can always add
> > > > > > > > > > a bool property to the apmixedsys to advertise that board X needs to use an
> > > > > > > > > > alternative permission (ex.: `mediatek,secure-fhctl`).
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I think we should remain clk-fhctl files because FHCTL is a independent HW and is
> > > > > > > > > not a necessary component of clk-pll.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I know what FHCTL is, but thank you anyway for the explanation, that's appreciated.
> > > > > > > > In any case, this not being a *mandatory* component doesn't mean that when it is
> > > > > > > > enabled it's not changing the way we manage the PLLs..........
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Frequency hopping function from FHCTL is not used to replace original flow of
> > > > > > > > > set_rate in clk-pll. They are two different ways to change PLL's frequency. The
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I disagree: when we want to use FHCTL, we effectively hand-over PLL control from
> > > > > > > > APMIXEDSYS to the Frequency Hopping controller - and we're effectively replacing
> > > > > > > > the set_rate() logic of clk-pll.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Do you mean we need to drop the current set_rate() logic (direct register write) and
> > > > > > use Frequency Hopping Controller instead?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On PLLs that are supported by the Frequency Hopping controller, yes: we should
> > > > > simply use a different .set_rate() callback in clk-pll.c, and we should return
> > > > > a failure if the FHCTL fails to set the rate - so we should *not* fall back to
> > > > > direct register writes, as on some platforms and in some conditions, using
> > > > > direct register writes (which means that we skip FHCTL), may lead to unstable
> > > > > system.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This means that we need logic such that, in mtk_clk_register_pll(), we end up
> > > > > having something like that:
> > > > > 
> > > > > if (fhctl_is_enabled(pll))
> > > > > 	init.ops = &mtk_pll_fhctl_ops;
> > > > > else
> > > > > 	init.ops = &mtk_pll_ops;
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I need to mention that not all PLL support FHCTL, only those PLLs with FHCTL HW can
> > > > > > choose to use FHCTL. Take 8186 for example, there are three PLLs don't support FHCTL
> > > > > > HW.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Where we declare the PLLs, for example, in clk-mt8186-apmixedsys.c, we can declare
> > > > > that such PLL can be managed by FHCTL, for example:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	PLL(CLK_APMIXED_ARMPLL_LL, "armpll_ll", 0x0204, 0x0210, 0,
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	    PLL_AO, 0, 22, 0x0208, 24, 0, 0, 0, 0x0208),
> > > > > 
> > > > > becomes
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	PLL(CLK_APMIXED_ARMPLL_LL, "armpll_ll", 0x0204, 0x0210, 0,
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	    PLL_AO, 0, 22, 0x0208, 24, 0, 0, 0, 0x0208, true);
> > > > > 
> > > > > where 'true' means "FHCTL is supported".
> > > > 
> > > > Does it still have an independent FHCTL driver after modifying to this? From your example,
> > > > setup a clk_ops and add FHCTL properities into PLL(), seems FHCTL driver is merged into
> > > > clk-pll and become part of clk-pll driver.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The direct-MMIO part of FHCTL becomes part of the clk-pll driver, yes - but then
> > > I also find it unacceptable to embed the IPI communication inside of there, so we
> > > can have an "external" helper for that.
> > 
> > I think clk-pll driver should focus on PLL HW itself. Since PLL can work alone without
> > FHCTL, adding FHCTL control into clk-pll may be a little strange. For this PLL+FHCTL
> > combination, I want to add a new type of clock driver, like clk-pll-fh. It might be a
> > easier way to maintain FHCTL HW related changes and won't affect to clk-pll.
> > 
> 
> That makes sense, and it's doable as long as we're not duplicating clk-pll's code
> to clk-pll-fh and also as long as we're hardcoding the availability of FHCTL in the
> SoC-specific clock drivers like I explained in the PLL macro from the previous
> example. Let's go!
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > We tend to have an indepentent driver and dts for FHCTL, and mutate only .set_rate()
> > > > callback function instead of whole clk_ops. The boot-up sequence is like:
> > > > 
> > > > 1. clk-pll + clk dts
> > > > 	probe  -> clk-pll original flow, nothing to change
> > > > 
> > > >           /* clk-pll provide multation API for set_rate */
> > > > 	/* mutate necessary set_rate() instead of mutating all ops */
> > > > 		def register_fhctl_set_rate(pll_name, callback)
> > > > 			ops = find_pll_ops_by_name(pll_name)
> > > > 			log("change set_rate to fhctl callback for $pll_name")
> > > > 			ops->set_rate = callback
> > > > 
> > > > 2. FHCTL driver + fhctl dts
> > > > 	probe
> > > > 		options = parsing dts (board specific, hopping disalbe or ssc-rate)
> > > > 		init FHCTL HW
> > > > 		for PLL in dts
> > > > 			if (ssc-rate > 0)
> > > > 				enable_ssc(ssc-rate)
> > > > 			if (hop-enabled)
> > > > 				/* mutate CCF set_rate, FHCTL engaged CCF */
> > > > 				register_fhctl_CCF(pll_name, callback)
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I really don't like having PLL names in devicetree: they're already defined in
> > > clock drivers and they will change on a per-SoC basis - and we do have per-SoC
> > > drivers...
> > > 
> > > Whatever goes to devicetree should be something that we need to vary on a
> > > per-board/platform(project) basis, so, enablement of FHCTL per-pll (by using
> > > handles and numeral bindings as per the example that I previously wrote),
> > > enablement of spread spectrum and its rate... and nothing else.
> > 
> > OK, we will remove PLL names in devicetree.
> > 
> 
> Great.
> 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Then, we register the PLLs with something like:
> > > > > 
> > > > > mtk_clk_register_plls(node, plls, num_plls, clk_data, fhctl_register_version);
> > > > > 
> > > > > ...where fhctl_register_version is used to assign the right fhctl register offsets.
> > > > > Also, it's not needed to assign all of the register offsets statically, because
> > > > > they can be easily calculated based on the number of supported PLLs, since the
> > > > > registers are structured like
> > > > > 
> > > > > [FHCTL GLOBAL REGISTERS] <--- hp_en...slope1
> > > > > [FHCTL SSC GLOBAL REGISTERS] <--- DSSC_CFG, DSSC0...x_CON
> > > > > 
> > > > > [FHCTL PER-PLL REGISTERS] <--- CFG...MON
> > > > > ^^^ where this is repeated X times for X PLLs.
> > > > > 
> > > > > so, keeping the example of MT8186, we can get the per-pll register like:
> > > > > 
> > > > > #define FHCTL_PLL_OFFSET	0x3c
> > > > > #define FHCTL_PLL_LEN		0x14
> > > > > 
> > > > > #define FHCTLx_CFG(pll_id)	(FHCTL_PLL_OFFSET + (pll_id * FHCTL_PLL_LEN))
> > > > > #define FHCTLx_UPDNLMT(pll_id)	(FHCTL_PLL_OFFSET + (pll_id * FHCTL_PLL_LEN) + 0x4)
> > > > > #define FHCTLx_DDS(pll_id)	(FHCTL_PLL_OFFSET + (pll_id * FHCTL_PLL_LEN) + 0x8)
> > > > > 
> > > > > we don't need to put all of them in a structure and for each PLL.
> > > > 
> > > > We use structure instead of using macros is because the register offset may have
> > > > difference between ICs. If we use macro, we need to maintain different versions of macros.
> > > > Using structure to store these register offsets is more flexible.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I understand. What I don't like about your specific approach is the amount of
> > > register offsets that we store in that structure, looks like it's a bit too many.
> > > 
> > > I've seen that there's a common pattern at least by checking downstream 5.10 and
> > > MT8186/95 layouts, so I still think that using these macros will be beneficial.
> > > 
> > > We can always add parameters to the structure in a later commit: in my opinion,
> > > that will help to engineer a better, shorter, cleaner solution for calculating
> > > these registers anyway... but I will leave this choice to you, anyway, since you
> > > know about way more SoCs than I do.
> > 
> > OK, we will reduce the structure.
> > 
> 
> Perfect!
> 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > So, we need both APMIXEDSYS and Frequency Hopping Controller in set_rate() logic to
> > > > > > handle this two types of PLL.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > As already said, we preventively know which PLLs support FHCTL and which does not,
> > > > > so we can use a different .set_rate() callback.
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, we can use a different .set_rate() callback when fhctl driver probing.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > current set_rate method in clk-pll changes PLL register setting directly. Another
> > > > > > > > > way uses FHCTL to change PLL rate.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ...and of course, if we change that, we're effectively mutating the functionality
> > > > > > > > of the MediaTek clk-pll driver and please understand that seeing a clear mutation
> > > > > > > > in that driver is a bit more human-readable.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Besides, this makes me think about one question: is there any instance in which,
> > > > > > > > when FHCTL rate setting fails, we fall back to direct register writes?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I don't think that this is feasible because we have a register in FHCTL that
> > > > > > > > effectively hands over control to it, so direct register writes should not work
> > > > > > > > when the PLL is not under APMIXEDSYS control, but I'm asking just to be extremely
> > > > > > > > sure that my understanding is right.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It won't fall back to direct register writes when FHCTL rate setting fails. But, PLL
> > > > > > control mode will switch back to APMIXEDSYS after frequency hopping completed.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There are two cases that we need to fall back to direct register writes:
> > > > > >      1. PLL support FHCTL but it doesn't want to use FHCTL.
> > > > > >      2. PLL doesn't support FHCTL HW.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > For case N.1, if this is board-specific, we have to resort to devicetree properties
> > > > > that will enable/disable FHCTL on specific PLLs.
> > > > > 
> > > > > mediatek,fhctl-disable = <CLK_APMIXED_MSDCPLL>, <CLK_APMIXED_NNAPLL>;
> > > > > 
> > > > > mediatek,ssc-enable = <CLK_APMIXED_MFGPLL>, <CLK_APMIXED_TVDPLL>;
> > > > > 
> > > > > These are just examples - I don't currently know if it's a better idea to have an
> > > > > allowlist or a blocklist as devicetree properties, as that depends on the expected
> > > > > number of PLLs for which we en/dis fhctl or just ssc (if we generally want fhctl
> > > > > enabled on all but one PLLs, we should use fhctl-disable, otherwise, fhctl-enable).
> > > > 
> > > > We also have a properity "ssc-rate" for setting up the ssc rate in percentage. The "ssc-
> > > > rate" properity is under fhctl dts node and can be setup on each fhctl-PLL.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Right. For that, we could have a default sensible percentage when SSC is enabled
> > > but no rate is set in devicetree, or we can perhaps consider SSC enabled when any
> > > meaningful SSC rate is set... For example:
> > > 
> > > mediatek,ssc-enable = <CLK_APMIXED_MFGPLL>, <CLK_APMIXED_TVDPLL>;
> > > mediatek,ssc-percent = <5>, <5>;
> > > 
> > > ... or something like:
> > > 
> > > mediatek,ssc = <CLK_APMIXED_MFGPLL 5>, <CLK_APMIXED_TVDPLL 5>;
> > > 
> > > ...but I'd like to have some feedback on that from somebody else, as I don't know
> > > if that would be acceptable in devicetree, or if there's any cleaner, niftier
> > > solution.
> > 
> > OK, we will use this:
> > 
> > mediatek,hopping-ssc-percent = <CLK_APMIXED_MFGPLL 5>, <CLK_APMIXED_TVDPLL 5>;
> > 
> 
> Looks good.
> 
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > We will set some PLL's frequency be controlled
> > > > > > > > > by clk-pll and some are controlled by FHCTL.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Another question: is this also changing on a per-board basis?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > (note: the pll names in the example are random and not specific to anything)
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Example: board A wants FHCTL on MMPLL, TVDPLL, MPLL, but *shall not* hand over
> > > > > > > >                      NNAPLL, MFGPLL
> > > > > > > >              board B wants FHCTL on NNAPLL, TVDPLL but *shall not* hand over MMPLL
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Granted that the two A, B boards are using the same SoC, can that ever happen?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This could happen if A, B boards have different desense issue.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ok, so it's definitely board specific. Devicetree is the way to go for this.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > And use `perms` param to decide
> > > > > > > > > whether a PLL is using FHCTL to change its frequency.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > The perms param seems to be about:
> > > > > > > >      * Enabling debug (but you're not providing any way to actually use debugging
> > > > > > > >        features, so what's the point?)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Debugging feature is not used yet, we can removed it.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > If the debugging features of the FHCTL driver will be like what I can see on
> > > > > the downstream MT6893 5.10 kernel, that's not really applicable to upstream.
> > > > > 
> > > > > In that case, please remove the debug.
> > > > 
> > > > Ok, we will remove it.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > >      * Handing over PLL control to FHCTL for hopping (can be as well done with
> > > > > > > >        simply using a different .set_rate() callback instead of a flag)
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > There has some PLL that have FHCTL but don't want to use FHCTL. The flag is used in
> > > > > > this case.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Use the flag to set the right .set_rate() callback, set at probe time, instead of
> > > > > checking that flag at every set_rate() call.
> > > > 
> > > > We will setup .set_rate() callback when doing fhctl-pll init.
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > >      * Enabling/disabling Spread Spectrum Clocking (and I think that this is a
> > > > > > > >        legit use for flags, but if it's just one flag, you can as well use a
> > > > > > > >        bool and manage this with a devicetree param like "enable-ssc")
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > That said, I think that the current way of enabling the FHCTL is more complicated
> > > > > > > > than how it should really be.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Here needs an option to decide whether to enable FHCTL-hopping or FHCTL-ssc since
> > > > > > these two are per-board basis.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > We cannot force all PLL hand over to FHCTL for hopping casue not all PLLs support
> > > > > > FHCTL and not all PLLs have need of using FHCTL-hopping.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Board specific -> devicetree
> > > > > 
> > > > > SoC specific -> hardcode, no devicetree.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > FHCTL has another function called SSC(spread spectrum clocking) which is used to
> > > > > > > > > solve PLL de-sense problem. De-sense problem is board-related so we introduce a
> > > > > > > > > `ssc-rate` param in the devicetree to decide whether SSC is enabled and how many
> > > > > > > > > rate should be set. Mixing SSC function into clk-pll may cause clk-pll more
> > > > > > > > > complex.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Thing is, I don't get why you think that adding SSC to clk-pll would complicate it
> > > > > > > > so much... it's really just a few register writes and nothing else, so I really
> > > > > > > > don't see where the problem is, here.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Another issue is that this driver may be largely incomplete, so perhaps I can't
> > > > > > > > really see the complications you're talking about? Is this the case?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Regarding keeping the FHCTL code in separated files, that's fine, but I would still
> > > > > > > > integrate it tightly in clk-pll and its registration flow, because - yes, this is
> > > > > > > > for sure not mandatory, but the main parameters are constant, they never change for
> > > > > > > > a specific PLL, as they're register offsets, bits and masks (which, again, will
> > > > > > > > never change as long as we're using the same SoC).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The driver may need to supoport microP by future HW design, standalone file clk-
> > > > > > fhctl.c helps to trigger init flow of such as ap-init-flow, microP-init-flow .....,
> > > > > > and those different init-flow also need to run some communication API with microP.
> > > > > > Those communication APIs are not suitable to merge into clk-pll.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Let's use clk-fhctl as an helper then, we can make sure to call the init flow for
> > > > > the microP in the SoC-specific clock drivers, I think that's not a problem?
> > > > > 
> > > > > clk_mtfuturesoc_someip_probe()
> > > > > {
> > > > > 	.... register clocks ....
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	freqhopping_microp_init();
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	return ret;
> > > > > }
> > > > > 
> > > > > If there's hardware out there that supports such feature and a downstream kernel to
> > > > > look at, please tell me which one, so that I will be able to check it out and
> > > > > perhaps understand how this flow works.
> > > > > 
> > > > > P.S.: I guess it's not fhctl-sspm?
> > > > 
> > > > You could find clk-fhctl-mcupm.c and clk-fhctl-gpueb.c on the downstream MT6893 5.10
> > > > kernel. Those codes require the PLL hardware specification to determine which PLL
> > > > group(eg. PLL TOP group, GPUEB group) runs on which microP and has responsibilty to
> > > > communicate with the microP.
> > > > 
> > > > If we implement these things into clk-pll driver, clk-pll driver not only needs to control
> > > > PLL frequency but also needs to deal with microP IPI. It makes clk-pll driver have others
> > > > works that is not belong to PLL operation. That's why we tend to have a standalone driver
> > > > for FHCTL.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Ok having something to analyze made this entire thing a bit more clear in my mind,
> > > thanks for the pointers.
> > > 
> > > Analyzing clk-fhctl-mcupm and clk-fhctl-gpueb makes me see that there's a lot of
> > > common code between the two: x_hopping_v1(), x_ssc_enable_v1(), x_ssc_disable_v1()
> > > (where x = {gpueb,mcupm}) are really the same functions, duplicated and renamed
> > > and nothing else.
> > > The only difference is the get_xxxx_ipidev(), which is avoidable by assigning
> > > mboxes = <...something...> in devicetree (gpueb mailbox, or mcupm mailbox).
> > > 
> > > Even the `FH_DEVCTL_CMD_ID` enumeration uses the same values!
> > > 
> > > To unroll that riddle, I would at that point add a new MediaTek specific clock
> > > driver (like clk-pll) and call it `clk-ipi.c`, because that's what it does in
> > > the end: whatever we do, goes through a mailbox instead of a direct MMIO write.
> > > 
> > > That clk-fhctl-ipi would contain a probe function that gets the mailbox handle,
> > > then we would add something like `clk_fhctl_set_rate()` function, export it in
> > > the `clk-mtk.h` or in a new `clk-fhctl.h` header, then assign the right callback
> > > in either the SoC's clock driver (by registering a different clock type, which,
> > > in this case, would be clk-fhctl-ipi instead of clk-pll), or in clk-pll itself...
> > > 
> > > In the end, I'm effectively proposing to:
> > > 
> > > 1. Merge the direct-MMIO handling of FHCTL in clk-pll;
> > > 2. Create a new driver (and clock type, eventually) for the IPI handling of FHCTL.
> > 
> >  From your idea, I think we can also create a new clock type for fhctl such as clk-pll-fh
> > and add a new PLL register function for PLL+FHCTL. Then we can change the registery
> > interface and won't affect the legacy ICs. Also, if FHCTL has changes, we only need to
> > modify clk-pll-fh.
> > I think using a new clock type has extendibility for FHCTL changes and also compatiable
> > with legacy ICs.
> > 
> > clk-pll.h
> > 	/* Define FHCTL data structure and contains mtk_pll_data.
> > 	 * We can use mtk_pll_data later. */
> > 	mtk_pll_fh_data {
> > 		struct mtk_pll_data pll_data;
> > 		/* fhctl_data */
> > 		unsigned int fh_id;
> > 		unsigned int ssc_rate;
> > 		...
> > 	}
> > 
> > clk-mt8186-apmixedsys.c
> > 	func clk_mt8186_apmixed_probe()
> > 		/* There are two implementations.
> > 		 * If ICs need FHCTL such as MT8186, use mtk_clk_register_pllfhs()
> > 		 * For those legacy ICs which don't need FHCTL, still use
> > 		 * mtk_clk_register_plls().
> > 		 */
> > 		/* 1. Need FHCTL. Use API from clk-pll-fh.c */
> > 		fhctl_parse_dt()
> > 		mtk_clk_register_pllfhs(plls data, fh-plls data)
> > 		
> > 		/* 2. Legacy ICs. Use API from clk-pll.c */
> > 		mtk_clk_register_plls()
> 
> I'm not sure if we're saying the very same thing here, but for the sake of being
> clear and avoiding any misunderstanding, here's my description.
> 
> 
> We should call both functions: register_pllfhs() for the PLLs that have support for
> freqhopping, register_plls() for the ones that *do not support* freqhopping.
> 
> Example for PLL_A, PLL_B, PLL_C, PLL_D:
> 
> Freqhopping supported (enabled or not): PLL_A, PLL_B
> Freqhopping NOT supported at all: PLL_C, PLL_D
> 
> fhplls_data[] = { PLL_A, PLL_B };
> plls_data[] = { PLL_C, PLL_D };
> 
> func mtk_clk_register_pllfhs(fhdata)
> 	walk through fhplls_data only, other plls are not passed to this function
> 
> func clk_mt8186_apmixed_probe()
> 	/* Some PLLs must be controlled directly via MMIO, while others
> 	 * support Frequency Hopping through FHCTL.
> 	 * Where FHCTL is supported, register clock with register_pllfhs.
> 	 * PLLs that are not supported by FHCTL: register with register_plls.
> 	 */
> 
> 	/* Register FHCTL PLLs */
> 	fhctl_parse_dt()
> 	mtk_clk_register_pllfhs(array of plls supporting pllfh)
> 
> 	/* Register the PLLs that do not support FHCTL at all */
> 	mtk_clk_register_plls(all the other PLLs that cannot be FHCTL-controlled)
> 

I have a different opinion here. I think we should just choose one register function when
probe and it depends on platform implementation instead of a PLL is supported FHCTL or
not. We have an option to use clk-pll-fh or clk-pll at the beginning of new IC
development. And, we want it's easy to add FHCTL support on legecy ICs.

The way of how we use the register function is affected by the way we use fhplls_data. If
FHCTL supported or not is used to decide which registery function should we use, it has to
change the exist plls_data. But most of IC's PLL data is already exist. So I want to use a
structure to descript FHCTL HW itself and have a link to existed PLL data.

>From your example, it will look like:

plls_data = { PLL_A, PLL_B, PLL_C, PLL_D };  /* Already existed */
fhplls_data = { FH_A,
FH_B };  /* New added for FHCTL data */

func mtk_clk_register_pllfhs(plls_data, fhplls_data)
	fhctl_match_pll_data()
		/* Link fhpll and pll:
		 *   FH_A -> PLL_A
		 *   FH_B -> PLL_B
		 */

For MT8186 and ICs need FHCTL supported:
	func clk_mt8186_apmixed_probe()
		fhctl_parse_dt()
		mtk_clk_register_pllfhs(plls_data, fhplls_data)

For those don't need FHCTL and legacy ICs:
	func clk_mtxxxx_apmixed_probe()
		mtk_clk_register_plls(plls_data)

When one ICs that need to support FHCTL but they didn't implement before, we only need to
change the registery function and add FHCTL data, no need to modify existed plls_data. I
think it can save our development time and maintenance effort.

> > 
> > clk-pll.c
> > 	/* No functional changes, so legacy ICs won't be affected.
> > 	 * Export clk_ops functions to clk-pll-fh.c
> > 	 */
> > 	func mtk_clk_register_plls()
> > 		init.ops = &mtk_pll_ops;
> > 
> > clk-pll-fh.c
> > 	/* A clock type of FHCTL PLL. Used to setup HW data and ops.
> > 	 * Most of ops functions inherit from clk-pll.c.
> > 	 * If PLL not support or not enable FHCTL, fallback to use &mtk_pll_ops.
> > 	 */
> > 	func mtk_clk_register_pllfhs(plls data, fh-plls data)
> > 		fhctl_match_pll_data()  /* match mtk_pll_data and mtk_pll_fh_data */
> > 		fhctl_hw_init()
> > 		if (fhctl_is_supported_and_enabled(pll))
> 
> Overall, this seems to look good, minor one nit: if FHCTL is *not supported* on
> a PLL, we should *not* even call mtk_clk_register_pllfhs on that PLL, so your
> pseudocode would be just:
> 
> 		if (fhctl_is_enabled(pll))

The requirements of clk-pll-fh are:
1. It is compatible with those PLLs that don't support FHCTL HW.
2. It can handle PLLs that supported FHCTL but aren't enabled.
3. It can handle PLLs that supported FHCTL but are enabled.

So, I use fhctl_is_supported_and_enabled(PLL) here. No matter a PLL supports FHCTL or not,
it can work.

> 
> > 			init.ops = &mtk_pll_fhctl_ops;
> > 		else
> > 			init.ops = &mtk_pll_ops;
> > 	
> > 		if (ssc_is_enable(pll))
> > 			fhctl_ssc_enable(pll)
> > 
> > clk-fhctl.c
> > 	/* APIs of FHCTL HW operations */
> > 	func fhctl_hw_init()
> > 	func fhctl_hopping()
> > 	func fhctl_ssc_enable()
> > 
> > 
> 
> So it seems that we've reached an agreement here, this was a nice planning
> discussion; we should now have a nice and solid base to work on, which is
> great.
> 
> Cheers,
> Angelo