[PATCH v2 04/14] ARM: OMAP5: Add minimal support for OMAP5430 SOC

[Hiremath, Vaibhav]

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 13:48:52, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Hiremath, Vaibhav <hvaibhav at ti.com> [120709 23:30]:
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 18:41:58, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > * Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav at ti.com> [120709 01:55]:
> > > > On 7/6/2012 2:51 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> > > > > --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/clkdev_omap.h
> > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/clkdev_omap.h
> > > > > @@ -39,6 +39,7 @@ struct omap_clk {
> > > > >  #define CK_443X		(1 << 11)
> > > > >  #define CK_TI816X	(1 << 12)
> > > > >  #define CK_446X		(1 << 13)
> > > > > +#define CK_54XX		(1 << 14)
> > > > 
> > > > This is conflicting with AM33XX, you may want to rebase it again, since
> > > > AM33xx clock tree is already pushed and available in
> > > > linux-omap/devel-am33xx-part2.
> > > 
> > > Heh these CK_XXXX defines are now running out of the u16 cpu_mask.
> > > 
> > > They really should be replaced with SoC specific lists of clocks
> > > rather than bloating the cpu_mask and repeating it for every clock
> > > that's compiled in for 800+ times.
> > > 
> > > Below (untested) is what could be done in the short term.
> > > 
> > > I wonder if we could #define CK_OMAP_DUMMY 0 that's always set
> > > for non-shared clocks if they only get set in some *_data.c
> > > file in a unique way?
> > > 
> > > Paul got any better ideas?
> ...
> 
> > This also will not scale up in the future and will end up again in the same 
> > situation.
> 
> Right that's why we want to get rid of it.
>  
> > Just a quick thought, may work here,
> > 
> > I looked at the usage of cpu_mask and rates.flag and I believe we can 
> > restrict both to given SoC, something like,
> > 
> > OMAP34XX ->
> >           ES1
> >           ES2PLUS
> >           36XX
> >           AM35XX
> >           ...
> > 
> > OMAP4 ->
> >           443X
> >           446X
> > 
> > AM33XX ->
> >           AM335X
> >           TI816X
> >           TI814X
> >           ...
> > 
> > XYZ...  ->
> >           ...
> > 
> > 
> > The proposal would be,
> > 
> > To make cpu_mask and rate.flags 32 bit wide and divide it in 16-16 bits -
> > 
> > Lower 16 bits => describe SoC it is applicable to
> > Upper 16 bit => describes silicon versions or families
> 
> No thanks.. We don't want to make it 32 bit and bloat all the compiled in
> clock even further. 
> 

In that case, how about just get rid of cpu_mask completely and trust the 
data passed by clock-tree for clksel dividers?
Let clock-tree data handle this, even if in some cases we end up in 
duplicating data for some clocks??

Thanks,
Vaibhav