[PATCH] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Correct TMU clock support again

[Simon Horman]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 06:10:40PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 01:16:52PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 01:04:35PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Kuninori Morimoto
> > > <kuninori.morimoto.gx at renesas.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Simon
> > > >
> > > >> This partially reverts 58079fa7d54a0929d304054ee759187a2ccd3cdf
> > > >> (ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Correct TMU clock support) and fixes
> > > >> a regression introduced by that patch.
> > > >>
> > > >> Although the documentation I have indicates that the patch above is
> > > >> correct it appears that the change causes the Marzen board to fail to boot
> > > >> as follows.
> > > > (snip)
> > > >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> > > >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> > > >> @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static struct clk_lookup lookups[] = {
> > > >>       CLKDEV_DEV_ID("ehci-platform.0", &mstp_clks[MSTP100]), /* USB EHCI port0/1 */
> > > >>       CLKDEV_DEV_ID("ohci-platform.0", &mstp_clks[MSTP100]), /* USB OHCI port0/1 */
> > > >>       CLKDEV_DEV_ID("sh_tmu.0", &mstp_clks[MSTP016]), /* TMU00 */
> > > >> -     CLKDEV_DEV_ID("sh_tmu.1", &mstp_clks[MSTP015]), /* TMU01 */
> > > >> +     CLKDEV_DEV_ID("sh_tmu.1", &mstp_clks[MSTP016]), /* TMU01 */
> > > >>       CLKDEV_DEV_ID("sh_tmu.2", &mstp_clks[MSTP014]), /* TMU02 */
> > > >>       CLKDEV_DEV_ID("i2c-rcar.0", &mstp_clks[MSTP030]), /* I2C0 */
> > > >>       CLKDEV_DEV_ID("i2c-rcar.1", &mstp_clks[MSTP029]), /* I2C1 */
> > > >
> > > > Really ???
> > 
> > I am surprised too!
> > 
> > > > Is MSTP value of TMU01 same as TMU00 ?
> > 
> > With the patch above the board appears to boot.
> > Without the patch, it doesn't.
> > 
> > > Usually, the TMU channels are bundled together. So TMU00 may be for
> > > channel 0->3 and TMU01 for 4->6.
> > 
> > Ok, so in that case the correct value for "sh_tmu.2" might actually
> > be MSTP016 or MSTP015 depending on the bundle size. I am unsure how to test
> > sh_tmu.2.
> > 
> > However, the documentation I have seems to talk about channels
> > being TMU0..TMU2 and control of them being via MSTP016..MSTP014.
> > I.e. what the code currently is but not what seems to work for
> > TMU1 in practice.
> 
> I think you are getting caught up on naming semantics. The MSTP bit
> controls a block, which in turn usually has multiple TMU channels
> associated with it, so it's quite reasonable to register the same bit
> multiple times for each channel it impacts (that's what refcounting is
> for, after all).
> 
> The TMU driver only handles individual channels, so sh_tmu.0/1/2 are just
> channel numbers, you don't have any insight in to which block they are a
> subset of or how any of their MSTP bits relate to each other, nor should
> you, as this gets handled by the clk API.
> 
> Consider the following example for SH7786:
> 
>         CLKDEV_ICK_ID("tmu_fck", "sh_tmu.0", &mstp_clks[MSTP008]),
>         CLKDEV_ICK_ID("tmu_fck", "sh_tmu.1", &mstp_clks[MSTP008]),
>         CLKDEV_ICK_ID("tmu_fck", "sh_tmu.2", &mstp_clks[MSTP008]),
>         CLKDEV_ICK_ID("tmu_fck", "sh_tmu.3", &mstp_clks[MSTP009]),
>         CLKDEV_ICK_ID("tmu_fck", "sh_tmu.4", &mstp_clks[MSTP009]),
>         CLKDEV_ICK_ID("tmu_fck", "sh_tmu.5", &mstp_clks[MSTP009]),
>         CLKDEV_ICK_ID("tmu_fck", "sh_tmu.6", &mstp_clks[MSTP010]),
>         CLKDEV_ICK_ID("tmu_fck", "sh_tmu.7", &mstp_clks[MSTP010]),
>         CLKDEV_ICK_ID("tmu_fck", "sh_tmu.8", &mstp_clks[MSTP010]),
>         CLKDEV_ICK_ID("tmu_fck", "sh_tmu.9", &mstp_clks[MSTP011]),
>         CLKDEV_ICK_ID("tmu_fck", "sh_tmu.10", &mstp_clks[MSTP011]),
>         CLKDEV_ICK_ID("tmu_fck", "sh_tmu.11", &mstp_clks[MSTP011]),
> 
> registers a tmu_fck lookup that maps back appropriately for each channel,
> regardless of MSTP overlap. In practice these channels are split between 4 TMU
> blocks, but the driver doesn't know or care.

Right. But the above does know which MSTP000X to use for each sh_tmu.X.
Getting that information correct for sh_tmu.2 on the r8a7779 problem I'm
not completely sure of the correct answer to. Though I now strongly suspect
it is MSTP016.