Re: [PATCH] video: ARM CLCD: Added dt support to set tim2 register

From: Arun Ramamurthy <arun.ramamurthy@broadcom.com>
To: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
	Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
	Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@google.com>,
	"Anatol Pomazau" <anatol@google.com>,
	Jonathan Richardson <jonathar@broadcom.com>,
	Scott Branden <sbranden@broadcom.com>,
	Ray Jui <rjui@broadcom.com>,
	"bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com" 
	<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] video: ARM CLCD: Added dt support to set tim2 register
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 16:37:13 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <54F653B9.4010507@broadcom.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1425378127.3092.38.camel@arm.com>


On 15-03-03 02:22 AM, Pawel Moll wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 10:02 +0000, Pawel Moll wrote:
>> On Mon, 2015-03-02 at 19:09 +0000, Arun Ramamurthy wrote:
>>>> The existing bindings intentionally avoided quoting internal registers -
>>>> they are supposed to describe how the hardware is wired up...
>>>>
>>>> So how about something like "arm,pl11x,tft-invert-clac"? Then the driver
>>>> sets the bit or not, depending on the property existance?
>>>>
>>> Sure, I can change it to two properties called arm,pl11x,tft-invert-clac
>>> and arm,pl11x,tft-clksel. Would that be acceptable?
>>
>> That would be fine by me :-)
>
> Or (after having a look at the TRM) I should rather say: the invert-clac
> is fine by me :-) but the tft-clksel doesn't work, I afraid.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, there are two problems with it.
>
> Number one: it's not TFT-specific, is it? So it certainly should not
> have the "tft-" bit.
>
> Number two: setting this bit says "do not use CLCDCLK for the logic; use
> HCLK instead", correct? If so, have a look at the clock properties. They
> say:
>
> - clock-names: should contain "clcdclk" and "apb_pclk"
>
> - clocks: contains phandle and clock specifier pairs for the entries
>          in the clock-names property. See
>
> So if your hardware has the reference clock wired to HCLK, and you
> defining the clocks as "clcdclk", you are (no offence meant ;-)
> lying :-)
>
No offense taken :)
> So how about solving the problem by extending the clock-names definition
> like this (feel free to use own wording):
>
> - clock-names: should contain two clocks, either "clcdclk" or "hclk"
>                 (depending on which input is to be used as a reference
>                 clock by the controller logic) and "apb_pclk"
>
> That way you're precisely describing the way the hardware is wired up.
> And the driver simply tries to get clcdclk first, if it's defined -
> cool, set clksel to 1, if not - try hclk and set clksel to 0. If neither
> of them is present - bail out.
>
> Does this make any sense?
>
This makes sense to me, thank you for the suggestions. I will fix it all 
up in V2
> Pawel
>