[PATCH v1 03/14] clk: Add of_clk_match() for device drivers

[Stephen Boyd]

On 08/14, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Stephen Boyd (2013-08-12 22:48:39)
> > On 08/12, Mike Turquette wrote:
> > > Quoting Stephen Boyd (2013-07-24 17:43:31)
> > > > In similar fashion as of_regulator_match() add an of_clk_match()
> > > > function that finds an initializes clock init_data structs from
> > > > devicetree. Drivers should use this API to find clocks that their
> > > > device is providing and then iterate over their match table
> > > > registering the clocks with the init data parsed.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd at codeaurora.org>
> > > 
> > > Stephen,
> > > 
> > > In general I like this approach. Writing real device drivers for clock
> > > controllers is The Right Way and of_clk_match helps.
> > > 
> > > Am I reading this correctly that the base register addresses/offsets for
> > > the clock nodes still come from C files? For example I still see
> > > pll8_desc defining reg stuff in drivers/clk/msm/gcc-8960.c.
> > 
> > I think we may be able to put the registers in DT but I don't
> > know why we need to do that if we're already matching up nodes
> > with C structs.
> 
> The reason to do so is to remove the per-clock data from the kernel
> sources entirely. Separating logic and data.

Ok.

> 
> > It also made me want to introduce devm_of_iomap()
> > which just seemed wrong (if you have a dev struct why can't you
> > use devm_ioremap()).
> > 
[snip]
> > 
> > This is great for making the kernel DT-data-driven, but I
> > couldn't find any other driver that was describing register level
> > details in DT.
> 
> Yeah, this sucks. Building a binding from a C struct is a bad idea. How
> many permutations are there? Hopefully some clocks use the same bit
> shifts and have reliable register offsets, with the only difference
> being base address. If this is the case then a compatible string could
> be done for each permutation assuming that number is low and manageable.

In the multimedia controller almost every clock has a different
register layout. Making a compatible string for each clock is
pretty much what I've done if you consider that I match up the
name of the node to a struct instead of matching a compatible
string to a struct. In the global controller it's more sane,
following a single register layout per compatible string.
Remember though, all the single bit clocks (gates or what we call
branches) have a completely random location for their on/off bit
and status bit.

> 
> > 
> > The good news is that newer clock controllers follow a standard
> > and so we can specify one or two register properties and the type
> > of clock and we're pretty much done. The software interface
> > hasn't been randomized like on earlier controllers and bits
> > within registers are always the same.
> 
> This does not suck. Just for the sake of argument let's say that you
> only had to deal with this new and improved register layout and not the
> old (current) stuff. Do you still see a reason to match DT data up with
> C struct data objects in the kernel?

I would still need to match up frequency tables unless I figure
out a way to put that in DT too.

> 
> > We still have some clocks
> > that are just on/off switches though and so we'll have to put
> > register level details like which bit turns that clock on in DT
> > (which I believe is not preferred/allowed?). I don't see any way
> > to avoid that if we want it to be entirely DT driven.
> 
> This is what I'm doing for the generic clock bindings. No one has
> screamed over that stuff so I guess rules were meant to be broken.
> 
 

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation