From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
Cc: mturquette@baylibre.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
haitao.suo@bitmain.com, darren.tsao@bitmain.com,
fisher.cheng@bitmain.com, alec.lin@bitmain.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] clk: Add driver for Bitmain BM1880 SoC clock controller
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 18:21:58 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190818012159.1EF652077C@mail.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190817035557.GC14652@Mani-XPS-13-9360>
Quoting Manivannan Sadhasivam (2019-08-16 20:55:57)
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 10:15:59PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Manivannan Sadhasivam (2019-07-05 08:14:39)
> > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/Kconfig
> > > index fc1e0cf44995..ffc61ed85ade 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/clk/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/drivers/clk/Kconfig
> > > @@ -304,6 +304,12 @@ config COMMON_CLK_FIXED_MMIO
> > > help
> > > Support for Memory Mapped IO Fixed clocks
> > >
> > > +config COMMON_CLK_BM1880
> > > + bool "Clock driver for Bitmain BM1880 SoC"
> > > + depends on ARCH_BITMAIN || COMPILE_TEST
> > > + help
> > > + This driver supports the clocks on Bitmain BM1880 SoC.
> >
> > Can you add this config somewhere else besides the end? Preferably
> > close to alphabetically in this file.
> >
>
> Okay. I got confused by the fact that Makefile is sorted but not the
> Kconfig.
Ok. I'll make a reminder to sort the Kconfig after -rc1 next time.
>
> > > +
> > > source "drivers/clk/actions/Kconfig"
> > > source "drivers/clk/analogbits/Kconfig"
> > > source "drivers/clk/bcm/Kconfig"
> > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-bm1880.c b/drivers/clk/clk-bm1880.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..26cdb75bb936
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-bm1880.c
[....]
> > > +
> > > +struct clk *bm1880_clk_register_pll(const struct bm1880_pll_clock *pll_clk,
> > > + void __iomem *sys_base)
> > > +{
> > > + struct bm1880_pll_hw_clock *pll_hw;
> > > + struct clk_init_data init;
> > > + struct clk_hw *hw;
> > > + int err;
> > > +
> > > + pll_hw = kzalloc(sizeof(*pll_hw), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!pll_hw)
> > > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > > +
> > > + init.name = pll_clk->name;
> > > + init.ops = &bm1880_pll_ops;
> > > + init.flags = pll_clk->flags;
> > > + init.parent_names = &pll_clk->parent;
> >
> > Can you use the new way of specifying parents instead of using strings
> > for everything?
> >
>
> Sure, will do it for clocks which doesn't use helper APIs.
>
> > > + init.num_parents = 1;
> > > +
> > > + pll_hw->hw.init = &init;
> > > + pll_hw->pll.reg = pll_clk->reg;
> > > + pll_hw->base = sys_base;
> > > +
> > > + hw = &pll_hw->hw;
> > > + err = clk_hw_register(NULL, hw);
> > > +
> > > + if (err) {
> > > + kfree(pll_hw);
> > > + return ERR_PTR(err);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return hw->clk;
> >
> > Can this return the clk_hw pointer instead?
> >
>
> What is the benefit? I see that only hw:init is going to be NULL in future.
Eventually we will remove ->clk from struct clk_hw and then this will
break. It also clearly makes this driver a clk provider driver and not a
clk consumer.
> So, I'll keep it as it is.
Please no!
> > > + bm1880_clk_unregister_pll(data->clk_data.clks[clks[i].id]);
> > > +
> > > + return PTR_ERR(clk);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int bm1880_clk_register_mux(const struct bm1880_mux_clock *clks,
> > > + int num_clks, struct bm1880_clock_data *data)
> > > +{
> > > + struct clk *clk;
> > > + void __iomem *sys_base = data->sys_base;
> > > + int i;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < num_clks; i++) {
> > > + clk = clk_register_mux(NULL, clks[i].name,
> >
> > Can you use the clk_hw based APIs for generic type clks?
> >
>
> IMO using helper APIs greatly reduce code size and makes the driver
> look more clean. So I prefer to use the helpers wherever applicable.
> When you plan to deprecate those, I'll switch over to plain clk_hw APIs.
We have clk_hw_register_mux(). Please use it. The clk based registration
APIs are deprecated.
> > > + kfree(clk_data);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER(bm1880_clk, "bitmain,bm1880-clk", bm1880_clk_init);
> >
> > Is there a reason why it can't be a platform driver?
> >
>
> Hmm, I looked into the majority of drivers which live under `driver/clk/`.
> Most of them are using CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER, so I thought that only drivers
> which have a separate directory are preferred by the maintainers to use
> platform driver way.
>
> Anyway, I can switch over to platform driver and that's what I prefer.
>
Yes please use a platform driver unless it doesn't work for some reason.
Even then, use a platform driver and CLK_OF_DECLARE_DRIVER() in
conjunction to register the early clks from the OF_DECLARED section and
then adopt the rest to the proper device driver later on. This way we
gain the benefits of driver core.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-18 1:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-07-05 15:14 [PATCH 0/5] Add Bitmain BM1880 clock driver Manivannan Sadhasivam
2019-07-05 15:14 ` [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: clock: Add Bitmain BM1880 SoC clock controller binding Manivannan Sadhasivam
2019-07-24 16:18 ` Rob Herring
2019-08-08 5:01 ` Stephen Boyd
2019-08-17 3:34 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2019-08-17 3:46 ` Stephen Boyd
2019-08-17 3:58 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2019-08-18 1:16 ` Stephen Boyd
2019-07-05 15:14 ` [PATCH 2/5] arm64: dts: bitmain: Add clock controller support for BM1880 SoC Manivannan Sadhasivam
2019-07-05 15:14 ` [PATCH 3/5] arm64: dts: bitmain: Source common clock for UART controllers Manivannan Sadhasivam
2019-07-05 15:14 ` [PATCH 4/5] clk: Add driver for Bitmain BM1880 SoC clock controller Manivannan Sadhasivam
2019-08-08 5:15 ` Stephen Boyd
2019-08-17 3:55 ` Manivannan Sadhasivam
2019-08-18 1:21 ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2019-07-05 15:14 ` [PATCH 5/5] MAINTAINERS: Add entry for Bitmain BM1880 SoC clock driver Manivannan Sadhasivam
2019-07-22 6:20 ` [PATCH 0/5] Add Bitmain BM1880 " Manivannan Sadhasivam
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=20190818012159.1EF652077C@mail.kernel.org \
--to=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=alec.lin@bitmain.com \
--cc=darren.tsao@bitmain.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=fisher.cheng@bitmain.com \
--cc=haitao.suo@bitmain.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org \
--cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
/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).