From: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: Jamie Iles <jamie@jamieiles.com>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 4/9] of: add clock providers
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:47:02 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120113124659.GA17029@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACxGe6vqb8AZcZb5WMvfmLsUZH7=SEtBrJCSfsFmDYpKX42MzA@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 09:46:58PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
...
> >> +Required properties:
> >> +- compatible : shall be "fixed-clock".
> >> +- #clock-cells : from common clock binding; shall be set to 0.
> >> +- clock-frequency : frequency of clock in Hz. May be multiple cells.
> >> +
> >> +Optional properties:
> >> +- gpios : From common gpio binding; gpio connection to clock enable pin.
> >
> > This seems a little odd to me to have in the common binding, but I'm not
> > that familiar with too many platforms.
> >
> >> +- clock-output-names : From common clock binding
> >> +
> >> +Example:
> >> + clock {
> >> + compatible = "fixed-clock";
> >> + #clock-cells = <0>;
> >> + clock-frequency = <1000000000>;
> >> + };
> >
> > I wonder if this should have an optional clock consumer with a standard
> > name for parenting? For example, on picoxcell there is a fixed 200MHz
> > APB clock that is really a PLL from a 20MHz reference input and I'd like
> > to represent that in the clock tree.
>
> If it depends on a parent clock, then it really isn't a fixed clock,
> is it (from the perspective of the OS). The point of this binding is
> a trivial way to describe clocks that don't change. If that
> assumption doesn't hold true, then this binding isn't suitable for
> that clock. As you point out, even the gpio enable feature is pushing
> things a bit.
>
I recently ran into a use case perfectly fitting into this discussion.
We have audio codec sgtl5000 on imx51-babbage board requiring a 26 MHz
clock input to its SYS_MCLK pin. The board has a 26 MHz oscillator with
a gpio control that outputs 26M_OSC_CLK. And this clock goes through a
3-state buffer component with another gpio control, and then goes to
sgtl5000 SYS_MCLK pin. The following is what I have in my mind to
describe them in device tree.
soc_26m_clk: soc-26m-clk {
compatible = "fixed-clock";
#clock-cells = <0>;
clock-frequency = <26000000>;
clock-output-names = "soc-26m-clk";
gpios = <&gpio3 1 0>;
};
sgtl5000_clk: sgtl5000-sys-mclk {
#clock-cells = <0>;
gpios = <&gpio4 26 0>;
clocks = <&soc_26m_clk>;
clock-names = "soc-26m-clk";
clock-output-names = "sgtl5000-sys-mclk";
};
codec: sgtl5000@0a {
compatible = "fsl,sgtl5000";
reg = <0x0a>;
clocks = <&sgtl5000_clk>;
clock-names = "sgtl5000-sys-mclk";
};
The sgtl5000-sys-mclk is a clock with fixed rate, but the rate is really
defined by its parent soc-26m-clk, which is anothe fixed-rate clock. We
have no doubt that soc-26m-clk is a "fixed-clock". Is sgtl5000-sys-mclk
a "fixed-clock"? The following is the "fixed-clock" defined by Mike's
implementation.
/*
* DOC: basic fixed-rate clock that cannot gate
*
* Traits of this clock:
* prepare - clock never gates. clk_prepare & clk_unprepare do nothing
* enable - clock never gates. clk_enable & clk_disable do nothing
* rate - rate is always a fixed value. No clk_set_rate support
* parent - fixed parent. No clk_set_parent support
*
* note: parent can be NULL, which implies that this clock is a root clock.
*/
struct clk_hw_ops clk_hw_fixed_ops = {
.recalc_rate = clk_hw_fixed_recalc_rate,
.get_parent = clk_hw_fixed_get_parent,
};
It says that the "fixed-clock" can have a fixed parent. So I should
probably add compatible = "fixed-clock" for node sgtl5000-sys-mclk too.
Then should I add clock-frequency property for it too? I'm not sure
about that, since the frequency is really defined by its parent. IOW,
should the clock-frequency property for "fixed-clock" be optional? On
the other hand, let clock-frequency property be optional seems a little
illogical to the concept of "fixed-clock". So I'm really confused here.
With the proper clock support, I would expect that sgtl5000 driver only
needs to make the following two calls to have its clock enabled.
mclk = clk_get(&dev, "sgtl5000-sys-mclk");
clk_prepare_enable(mclk);
But looking at the current fixed-clock implementation, there is even
no clk_enable operation for fixed-clock. How can we control the clock
with gpio?
All I'm saying is that we need some level of alignment between clock
binding and common-clk implementation.
Regards,
Shawn
> That said, I'm open to extending this binding if something can be
> defined that will have a lot of use cases.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-13 12:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-12-12 22:02 [RFC v2 1/9] arm/versatile*: merge all versatile struct clk definitions Grant Likely
2011-12-12 22:02 ` [RFC v2 2/9] arm/versatile*: Consolidate clk_ops and setvco implementations Grant Likely
2011-12-12 22:02 ` [RFC v2 3/9] of: Add of_property_match_string() to find index into a string list Grant Likely
2011-12-12 22:02 ` [RFC v2 4/9] of: add clock providers Grant Likely
2011-12-12 23:29 ` Jamie Iles
2011-12-13 17:54 ` Grant Likely
2011-12-13 18:01 ` Rob Herring
2011-12-13 18:03 ` Grant Likely
2011-12-15 13:51 ` Shawn Guo
2011-12-15 14:23 ` Rob Herring
2011-12-15 15:13 ` Shawn Guo
2011-12-15 17:37 ` Grant Likely
2012-01-10 21:33 ` Jamie Iles
2012-01-12 4:46 ` Grant Likely
2012-01-12 10:07 ` Jamie Iles
2012-01-12 18:44 ` Turquette, Mike
2012-01-12 19:16 ` Grant Likely
2012-01-13 12:47 ` Shawn Guo [this message]
2012-01-14 4:30 ` Turquette, Mike
2012-01-14 5:40 ` Shawn Guo
2012-01-13 13:50 ` Shawn Guo
2012-01-13 14:05 ` Rob Herring
2012-01-13 14:38 ` Shawn Guo
2012-01-17 20:44 ` Stephen Warren
2012-01-17 22:47 ` Grant Likely
2012-01-17 23:37 ` Turquette, Mike
2012-01-17 23:49 ` Grant Likely
2012-01-18 0:05 ` Stephen Warren
2011-12-12 22:02 ` [RFC v2 5/9] dt/clock: Add handling for fixed clocks and a clock node setup iterator Grant Likely
2011-12-15 15:19 ` Shawn Guo
2011-12-12 22:02 ` [RFC v2 6/9] arm/dt: add devicetree support to sp804 timer support Grant Likely
2011-12-12 23:54 ` Rob Herring
2011-12-12 22:02 ` [RFC v2 7/9] arm/dt: Common plat-versatile support for icst and sp804 based system clocks Grant Likely
2012-01-17 21:05 ` Stephen Warren
2012-01-17 22:02 ` Rob Herring
2012-01-17 22:59 ` Grant Likely
2011-12-12 22:02 ` [RFC v2 8/9] dt/arm: versatile add clock parsing Grant Likely
2011-12-12 22:02 ` [RFC v2 9/9] arm/highbank: Use clock binding common support code Grant Likely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120113124659.GA17029@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net \
--to=shawn.guo@linaro.org \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=jamie@jamieiles.com \
--cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mturquette@ti.com \
--cc=rob.herring@calxeda.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).