[PATCH 4/4 v2] ARM: S5PV210: Add clock definition for MIPI-CSIS DPHY

[Sylwester Nawrocki]

Hi,

On 2010-12-10 10:12, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Friday, December 10, 2010 6:14 AM Kukjin Kim wrote:
> 
>> Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>>>
>>> MIPI DPHY control register requires special handling since it is shared
>>> between CSI (camera serial interface) and DSI (display serial interface).
>>> By creating this clock a serialized interface is provided for mipi-csis
>>> and mipi-dsim drivers, so DPHYs may be safely controlled by both drivers.
>>> Similarly dsim_dphy clock could be added for mipi-dsim.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I am not quite sure about_"dphy_clock", perhaps power domain
>>> handling code would be better place for it.
>>>
>> Yeah, it is MIPI DPHY enable/disable control register not clock control.
>> So its proper position is not here...
>>
>> Hmm...how about driver's probe/open or some kind of setup in machine
>> directory?
> 
> I'm not sure that this is the best way of handling this phy controller. Please
> notice that mipi phy controller has different register location on S5PC110 and
> S5PC210. Please also notice that S5PC210 has 2 mipi csci controllers and phy
> interfaces, while s5pc110 has only one. Hiding all the logic and register
> specific writes behind this 'csi_dphy' clock easily resolves all these issues
> on all different samsung platforms and makes it easy to use it from the driver.
> Similar patch has been proposed some time ago for usb_phy interface and imho
> this is the right way to go.
> 
More importantly S5P_MIPI_DPHY_CONTROL* register is shared between two
devices - MIPI-CSIS and MIPI-DSIM. It means some kind of serialization
mechanism need to be employed while accessing this register, a spinlock
seems to fit best here. It also means that if we decided to create the
platform callback such a code would have to be placed in a common
compilation unit which would be built when either mipi-csis or mipi-dsim
is selected. And this callback would have to account the differences
between various SoC flavours or it would have to be repeated for each
mach-s5pvXXX.
So if the platform callback is the preferred way, where do we put an
implementation of it?

Regards,
Sylwester