Re: [PATCH V2 3/6] clk: qcom: clk-alpha-pll: Remove explicit CAL_L configuration for EVO PLL

[Dmitry Baryshkov]

On 26/05/2023 12:33, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 25.05.2023 19:21, Jagadeesh Kona wrote:
> > In lucid evo pll, the CAL_L field is part of L value register itself, and
> > the l value configuration passed from clock controller driver includes
> > CAL_L and L values as well. Hence remove explicit configuration of CAL_L
> > for evo pll.
> >
> > Fixes: 260e36606a03 ("clk: qcom: clk-alpha-pll: add Lucid EVO PLL configuration interfaces")
> > Signed-off-by: Taniya Das <quic_tdas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Jagadeesh Kona <quic_jkona@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> Oh that isn't obvious at first sight, nice find!
>
> I'd suggest a different solution though:
>
> #define LUCID_EVO_PLL_L_LVAL	GENMASK(..
> #define LUCID_EVO_PLL_L_CAL_L	GENMASK(..
>
> lval = FIELD_PREP(LUCID_EVO_PLL_L_LVAL, config->l) |
>         FIELD_PREP(LUCID_EVO_PLL_L_CAL_L, config->cal_l);
>
> This would make the separation between the two parts more explicit
>
> however
>
> config->l would then represent the L value and not the end value
> written to the L register

Yes. I think there should be separate config->l and config->cal_l values 
(and probably ringosc_cal_l, basing on the comment in the source).

Just a question: is camcc-sm8550 using the same PLL type or is it some 
kind of subtype of lucid_evo PLL?

--
With best wishes
Dmitry