Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] drm/msm/dsi/phy: Define PHY_CMN_CLK_CFG[01] bitfields and simplify saving

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 04/02/2025 15:28, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>>  drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy_7nm.c          | 31 ++++++++++++----------
>>>>  .../gpu/drm/msm/registers/display/dsi_phy_7nm.xml  | 12 +++++++--
>>>>  2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy_7nm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy_7nm.c
>>>> index 926fd8e3330b2cdfc69d1e0e5d3930abae77b7d8..b61e75a01e1b69f33548ff0adefc5c92980a15d7 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy_7nm.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/phy/dsi_phy_7nm.c
>>>> @@ -67,8 +67,7 @@ struct dsi_pll_config {
>>>>  
>>>>  struct pll_7nm_cached_state {
>>>>  	unsigned long vco_rate;
>>>> -	u8 bit_clk_div;
>>>> -	u8 pix_clk_div;
>>>> +	u8 clk_div;
>>>>  	u8 pll_out_div;
>>>>  	u8 pll_mux;
>>>>  };
>>>> @@ -401,12 +400,12 @@ static void dsi_pll_cmn_clk_cfg1_update(struct dsi_pll_7nm *pll, u32 mask,
>>>>  
>>>>  static void dsi_pll_disable_global_clk(struct dsi_pll_7nm *pll)
>>>>  {
>>>> -	dsi_pll_cmn_clk_cfg1_update(pll, BIT(5), 0);
>>>> +	dsi_pll_cmn_clk_cfg1_update(pll, DSI_7nm_PHY_CMN_CLK_CFG1_CLK_EN, 0);
>>>>  }
>>>>  
>>>>  static void dsi_pll_enable_global_clk(struct dsi_pll_7nm *pll)
>>>>  {
>>>> -	u32 cfg_1 = BIT(5) | BIT(4);
>>>> +	u32 cfg_1 = DSI_7nm_PHY_CMN_CLK_CFG1_CLK_EN | DSI_7nm_PHY_CMN_CLK_CFG1_CLK_EN_SEL;
>>>>  
>>>>  	writel(0x04, pll->phy->base + REG_DSI_7nm_PHY_CMN_CTRL_3);
>>>>  	dsi_pll_cmn_clk_cfg1_update(pll, cfg_1, cfg_1);
>>>> @@ -572,15 +571,17 @@ static void dsi_7nm_pll_save_state(struct msm_dsi_phy *phy)
>>>>  	cached->pll_out_div &= 0x3;
>>>>  
>>>>  	cmn_clk_cfg0 = readl(phy_base + REG_DSI_7nm_PHY_CMN_CLK_CFG0);
>>>> -	cached->bit_clk_div = cmn_clk_cfg0 & 0xf;
>>>> -	cached->pix_clk_div = (cmn_clk_cfg0 & 0xf0) >> 4;
>>>> +	cached->clk_div = cmn_clk_cfg0 & (DSI_7nm_PHY_CMN_CLK_CFG0_DIV_CTRL_3_0__MASK |
>>>> +					  DSI_7nm_PHY_CMN_CLK_CFG0_DIV_CTRL_7_4__MASK);
>>>
>>> Could you rather store these two fields separately by using FIELD_GET?
>>
>> So make the code again more complicated? OK.
> 
> It was already there, bit_clk_div and pix_clk_div.


Yes and I (believe) simplified it. It is subjective, so I don't mind
going back to two fields, as you asked.

Best regards,
Krzysztof