On Thu, Aug 19, 2021 at 09:41:26PM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote:
> On 8/2/21 1:22 AM, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> > Allwinner R329 has a CCU that is similar to the H616 one, but it's cut
> > down and have PLLs moved out.
> > 
> > Add support for it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@sipeed.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig                |   5 +
> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Makefile               |   1 +
> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-r329.c      | 526 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >  drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-r329.h      |  32 ++
> >  include/dt-bindings/clock/sun50i-r329-ccu.h |  73 +++
> >  include/dt-bindings/reset/sun50i-r329-ccu.h |  45 ++
> >  6 files changed, 682 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-r329.c
> >  create mode 100644 drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-r329.h
> >  create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/clock/sun50i-r329-ccu.h
> >  create mode 100644 include/dt-bindings/reset/sun50i-r329-ccu.h
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig
> > index e49b2c2fa5b7..4b32d5f81ea8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig
> > @@ -42,6 +42,11 @@ config SUN50I_H6_R_CCU
> >  	default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
> >  	depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
> >  
> > +config SUN50I_R329_CCU
> > +	bool "Support for the Allwinner R329 CCU"
> > +	default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
> > +	depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
> > +
> >  config SUN50I_R329_R_CCU
> >  	bool "Support for the Allwinner R329 PRCM CCU"
> >  	default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Makefile b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Makefile
> > index db338a2188fd..62f3c5bf331c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Makefile
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Makefile
> > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SUN50I_A100_R_CCU)	+= ccu-sun50i-a100-r.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_SUN50I_H6_CCU)	+= ccu-sun50i-h6.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_SUN50I_H616_CCU)	+= ccu-sun50i-h616.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_SUN50I_H6_R_CCU)	+= ccu-sun50i-h6-r.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_SUN50I_R329_CCU)	+= ccu-sun50i-r329.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_SUN50I_R329_R_CCU)	+= ccu-sun50i-r329-r.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_SUN4I_A10_CCU)	+= ccu-sun4i-a10.o
> >  obj-$(CONFIG_SUN5I_CCU)		+= ccu-sun5i.o
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-r329.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-r329.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..a0b4cfd6e1db
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-r329.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,526 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > +/*
> > + * Based on the H616 CCU driver, which is:
> > + *   Copyright (c) 2020 Arm Ltd.
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <linux/clk-provider.h>
> > +#include <linux/io.h>
> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> > +#include <linux/of_address.h>
> > +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > +
> > +#include "ccu_common.h"
> > +#include "ccu_reset.h"
> > +
> > +#include "ccu_div.h"
> > +#include "ccu_gate.h"
> > +#include "ccu_mp.h"
> > +#include "ccu_mult.h"
> > +#include "ccu_nk.h"
> > +#include "ccu_nkm.h"
> > +#include "ccu_nkmp.h"
> > +#include "ccu_nm.h"
> > +
> > +#include "ccu-sun50i-r329.h"
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * An external divider of PLL-CPUX is controlled here. As it's similar to
> > + * the external divider of PLL-CPUX on previous SoCs (only usable under
> > + * 288MHz}, ignore it.
> 
> Mismatched (braces} here
> 
> > + */
> > +static const char * const cpux_parents[] = { "osc24M", "osc32k", "iosc",
> > +					     "pll-cpux", "pll-periph",
> > +					     "pll-periph-2x",
> > +					     "pll=periph-800m" };
> 
> = should be a -.
> 
> Now that these PLLs are in a different device, how is this supposed to affect
> the DT binding? Do we put all of them in the clocks property?
> 
> If so, we can use .fw_name at some point. If not, why bother with the clocks
> property at all? This is another part of the "let's get the clock tree right
> from the start" discussion.

Agreed

Maxime