[PATCH v9 6/6] clk: samsung: remove unused clock aliases and update clock flags

[Thomas Abraham]

Hi Tomasz,

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 7:43 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30.07.2014 10:07, Thomas Abraham wrote:
>> With some of the Exynos SoCs switched over to use the generic CPUfreq drivers,
>> the unused clock aliases can be removed. In addition to this, the individual
>> clock blocks which are now encapsulated with the consolidate CPU clock type
>> can now be marked with read-only flags.
>
> [snip]
>
>> @@ -1500,6 +1499,7 @@ static void __init exynos4_clk_init(struct device_node *np,
>>               exynos4_soc == EXYNOS4210 ? "Exynos4210" : "Exynos4x12",
>>               _get_rate("sclk_apll"), _get_rate("sclk_mpll"),
>>               _get_rate("sclk_epll"), _get_rate("sclk_vpll"),
>> +             exynos4_soc == EXYNOS4210 ? _get_rate("armclk") :
>>               _get_rate("div_core2"));
>
> I believe "div_core2" should work fine here for all SoCs without the
> need for this if.

The following patch is a pre-requisite for this patch.
http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg351540.html

The rate can be obtained from div_core2 as well but with the cpu clock
now registered, the rate can be obtained from the cpu clock instance
instead of the div_core2 divider. And when Exynos4412 also add cpu
clock instance, the 'if' above will be removed.

>
>>  }
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c
>> index e19e365..1d958f1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos5250.c
>
> [snip]
>
>> @@ -848,6 +851,6 @@ static void __init exynos5250_clk_init(struct device_node *np)
>>       samsung_clk_of_add_provider(np, ctx);
>>
>>       pr_info("Exynos5250: clock setup completed, armclk=%ld\n",
>> -                     _get_rate("div_arm2"));
>> +                     _get_rate("armclk"));
>
> Similarly here, no need for this change.

Same here. Instead of getting the rate from div_core2 divider block,
the cpu clock instance is used to find the rate. I would prefer to use
cpu clock here. Is there any reason to prefer div_core2 over the cpu
clock instance?

Thanks,
Thomas.

>
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel