Re: [PATCH 1/4] clk: samsung: out: Add infrastructure to register CLKOUT

From: Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@linaro.org>
To: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
Cc: Rahul Sharma <rahul.sharma@samsung.com>,
	Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	sunil joshi <joshi@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] clk: samsung: out: Add infrastructure to register CLKOUT
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 09:00:46 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHbNUh03TVxbXZcT3e6618zPdu_53_y6nVjwJE7cWa6zxLMpqA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5374CA1C.8000207@samsung.com>

On 15 May 2014 19:37, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com> wrote:
> Hi Rahul, Tushar,
>
> On 15.05.2014 15:44, Rahul Sharma wrote:
>> Hi Tushar,
>>
>> Basically you are adding a new clock-type for Clkout. IMO clkout
>> is not a special hardware. Existing clock types can be reused to
>> support clkout. I see 3 major problem here:
>>
>> 1) Clkout -> (Mux + Gate). You clubbed mux and gate together, and
>> exposing as a single clock which is something like a composite clock.
>> IMO this is not a recommended way in CCF.
>>
>> 2) New Clock Type: Since clkout is just a combination of a simple
>> mux and gate which are already supported, it is a unnecessary
>> duplication.
>>
>> 3) Clkout registered along with CMU: which is not correct. Clkout is in PMU
>> (Separate physical IP) and should be registered as a independent Clock
>> provider which provides 1 mux and 1 gate clock (As if now). It should also be
>> well connected with main CMU.
>>
>> I understand the challenge in using regmap interface for a clock provider. But
>> we need to identify a clean solution. IMHO a independent clock provider with
>> iomap, is relatively cleaner approach till CCF is not ready with regmap based
>> reg access for clock registers.
>>
>> Experts!! please comment.
>
> It's quite unfortunate that Tushar has duplicated the effort to create a
> clkout driver, considering the fact that we did have such driver
> internally at SRPOL and it was quite nice and simple.
>

I had no idea that you had some solutions to this available to be posted :(

Now that the new series is posted, I will test that at my end and
update you later.

> I will post a cleaned-up version today, that is about 2 times smaller in
> terms of lines of added code and provides the same functionality,
> without introducing custom clock types. In addition, it models the
> clkout properly as a feature of PMU, not CMU (CMU only provides outputs
> of particular sub-blocks that are fed into the PMU).
>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz

-- 
Tushar Behera