Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] clk: samsung: add new clocks for DMC for Exynos5422 SoC

[Chanwoo Choi <cwchoi00@gmail.com>]

Hi Lukasz,

I recommend that please don't send the version up patchset before
finishing the discussion.

2019년 2월 2일 (토) 오전 2:47, Lukasz Luba <l.luba@partner.samsung.com>님이 작성:
>
> This patch provides support for clocks needed for Dynamic Memory Controller
> in Exynos5422 SoC. It adds CDREX base register addresses, new DIV, MUX and
> GATE entries.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lukasz Luba <l.luba@partner.samsung.com>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c
> index 34cce3c..f1a4f56 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5420.c
> @@ -132,6 +132,8 @@
>  #define BPLL_LOCK              0x20010
>  #define BPLL_CON0              0x20110
>  #define SRC_CDREX              0x20200
> +#define GATE_BUS_CDREX0                0x20700
> +#define GATE_BUS_CDREX1                0x20704
>  #define DIV_CDREX0             0x20500
>  #define DIV_CDREX1             0x20504
>  #define KPLL_LOCK              0x28000
> @@ -248,6 +250,8 @@ static const unsigned long exynos5x_clk_regs[] __initconst = {
>         DIV_CDREX1,
>         SRC_KFC,
>         DIV_KFC0,
> +       GATE_BUS_CDREX0,
> +       GATE_BUS_CDREX1,
>  };
>
>  static const unsigned long exynos5800_clk_regs[] __initconst = {
> @@ -425,6 +429,10 @@ PNAME(mout_group13_5800_p) = { "dout_osc_div", "mout_sw_aclkfl1_550_cam" };
>  PNAME(mout_group14_5800_p)     = { "dout_aclk550_cam", "dout_sclk_sw" };
>  PNAME(mout_group15_5800_p)     = { "dout_osc_div", "mout_sw_aclk550_cam" };
>  PNAME(mout_group16_5800_p)     = { "dout_osc_div", "mout_mau_epll_clk" };
> +PNAME(mout_mx_mspll_ccore_phy_p) = { "sclk_bpll", "mout_sclk_dpll",
> +                                       "mout_sclk_mpll", "ff_dout_spll2",
> +                                       "mout_sclk_spll", "mout_sclk_epll"};
> +

Remove unneeded extra blank line.

>
>  /* fixed rate clocks generated outside the soc */
>  static struct samsung_fixed_rate_clock
> @@ -450,7 +458,7 @@ static const struct samsung_fixed_factor_clock
>  static const struct samsung_fixed_factor_clock
>                 exynos5800_fixed_factor_clks[] __initconst = {
>         FFACTOR(0, "ff_dout_epll2", "mout_sclk_epll", 1, 2, 0),
> -       FFACTOR(0, "ff_dout_spll2", "mout_sclk_spll", 1, 2, 0),
> +       FFACTOR(CLK_FF_DOUT_SPLL2, "ff_dout_spll2", "mout_sclk_spll", 1, 2, 0),
>  };
>
>  static const struct samsung_mux_clock exynos5800_mux_clks[] __initconst = {
> @@ -472,11 +480,14 @@ static const struct samsung_mux_clock exynos5800_mux_clks[] __initconst = {
>         MUX(0, "mout_aclk300_disp1", mout_group5_5800_p, SRC_TOP2, 24, 2),
>         MUX(0, "mout_aclk300_gscl", mout_group5_5800_p, SRC_TOP2, 28, 2),
>
> +       MUX(CLK_MOUT_MX_MSPLL_CCORE_PHY, "mout_mx_mspll_ccore_phy",
> +               mout_mx_mspll_ccore_phy_p, SRC_TOP7, 0, 3),
> +
>         MUX(CLK_MOUT_MX_MSPLL_CCORE, "mout_mx_mspll_ccore",
> -                       mout_mx_mspll_ccore_p, SRC_TOP7, 16, 2),
> +                       mout_mx_mspll_ccore_p, SRC_TOP7, 16, 3),
>         MUX_F(CLK_MOUT_MAU_EPLL, "mout_mau_epll_clk", mout_mau_epll_clk_5800_p,
>                         SRC_TOP7, 20, 2, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 0),
> -       MUX(0, "sclk_bpll", mout_bpll_p, SRC_TOP7, 24, 1),
> +       MUX(CLK_SCLK_BPLL, "sclk_bpll", mout_bpll_p, SRC_TOP7, 24, 1),
>         MUX(0, "mout_epll2", mout_epll2_5800_p, SRC_TOP7, 28, 1),
>
>         MUX(0, "mout_aclk550_cam", mout_group3_5800_p, SRC_TOP8, 16, 3),
> @@ -648,7 +659,7 @@ static const struct samsung_mux_clock exynos5x_mux_clks[] __initconst = {

The newly added clocks by this patch are supported on all Exynos5420/5422/5800?
I'm not sure because on the patch description, you only mentioned the
Exynos5422 without Exynos5420/Exynos5800.

As for now, I can't check the Exynos TRM because I'm in holiday until
next Wednesday. I will check them with Exynos542-/5422/5800 TRM on
next Thursday.

>
>         MUX(0, "mout_sclk_mpll", mout_mpll_p, SRC_TOP6, 0, 1),
>         MUX(CLK_MOUT_VPLL, "mout_sclk_vpll", mout_vpll_p, SRC_TOP6, 4, 1),
> -       MUX(0, "mout_sclk_spll", mout_spll_p, SRC_TOP6, 8, 1),
> +       MUX(CLK_MOUT_SCLK_SPLL, "mout_sclk_spll", mout_spll_p, SRC_TOP6, 8, 1),
>         MUX(0, "mout_sclk_ipll", mout_ipll_p, SRC_TOP6, 12, 1),
>         MUX(0, "mout_sclk_rpll", mout_rpll_p, SRC_TOP6, 16, 1),
>         MUX_F(CLK_MOUT_EPLL, "mout_sclk_epll", mout_epll_p, SRC_TOP6, 20, 1,
> @@ -817,6 +828,8 @@ static const struct samsung_div_clock exynos5x_div_clks[] __initconst = {
>         DIV(CLK_DOUT_CLK2X_PHY0, "dout_clk2x_phy0", "dout_sclk_cdrex",
>                         DIV_CDREX0, 3, 5),
>
> +       DIV(0, "dout_pclk_drex0", "dout_cclk_drex0", DIV_CDREX0, 28, 3),

Before applied this patch, on line 809, DIV_CDREX0[28:30] was already
defined with "dout_pclk_cdrex" gate clock name. Why do you redefine it
with same register/same bit with the different clock name? The clock
driver have to get only unique clock for the same register/same bit
information.

   808         /* CDREX Block */
   809         DIV(CLK_DOUT_PCLK_CDREX, "dout_pclk_cdrex",
"dout_aclk_cdrex1",
   810                         DIV_CDREX0, 28, 3),

And also, you don't use "dout_pclk_drex0" defined by you for
CLK_ACLK_PPMU_DREX* gate clock on below. Instead, you use the already
defined 'dout_pclk_cdrex' as I commented.

> +
>         DIV(CLK_DOUT_PCLK_CORE_MEM, "dout_pclk_core_mem", "mout_mclk_cdrex",
>                         DIV_CDREX1, 8, 3),
>
> @@ -1170,6 +1183,31 @@ static const struct samsung_gate_clock exynos5x_gate_clks[] __initconst = {
>                         GATE_TOP_SCLK_ISP, 12, CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT, 0),
>
>         GATE(CLK_G3D, "g3d", "mout_user_aclk_g3d", GATE_IP_G3D, 9, 0, 0),
> +

Add the following comment for the readability in order to sustain the
consistency of this driver.
/* CDREX Block */ or /* CDREX */

> +       GATE(CLK_CLKM_PHY0, "clkm_phy0", "dout_sclk_cdrex",
> +                       GATE_BUS_CDREX0, 0, 0, 0),
> +       GATE(CLK_CLKM_PHY1, "clkm_phy1", "dout_sclk_cdrex",
> +                       GATE_BUS_CDREX0, 1, 0, 0),
> +       GATE(0, "mx_mspll_ccore_phy", "mout_mx_mspll_ccore_phy",
> +                       SRC_MASK_TOP7, 0, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> +
> +       GATE(CLK_ACLK_PPMU_DREX0_0, "aclk_ppmu_drex0_0", "dout_aclk_cdrex1",
> +                       GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 15, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> +       GATE(CLK_ACLK_PPMU_DREX0_1, "aclk_ppmu_drex0_1", "dout_aclk_cdrex1",
> +                       GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 14, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> +       GATE(CLK_ACLK_PPMU_DREX1_0, "aclk_ppmu_drex1_0", "dout_aclk_cdrex1",
> +                       GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 13, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> +       GATE(CLK_ACLK_PPMU_DREX1_1, "aclk_ppmu_drex1_1", "dout_aclk_cdrex1",
> +                       GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 12, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),

You better to move the gate clock of GATE_BUS_CDREX[15:12] under the
gate clock of GATE_BUS_CDREX[29:26]
for the decending order because you defined them as the decending order.

> +
> +       GATE(CLK_PCLK_PPMU_DREX0_0, "pclk_ppmu_drex0_0", "dout_pclk_cdrex",
> +                       GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 29, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> +       GATE(CLK_PCLK_PPMU_DREX0_1, "pclk_ppmu_drex0_1", "dout_pclk_cdrex",
> +                       GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 28, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> +       GATE(CLK_PCLK_PPMU_DREX1_0, "pclk_ppmu_drex1_0", "dout_pclk_cdrex",
> +                       GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 27, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
> +       GATE(CLK_PCLK_PPMU_DREX1_1, "pclk_ppmu_drex1_1", "dout_pclk_cdrex",
> +                       GATE_BUS_CDREX1, 26, CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, 0),
>  };
>
>  static const struct samsung_div_clock exynos5x_disp_div_clks[] __initconst = {
> --
> 2.7.4
>


--
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel