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

[Tomasz Figa]

On 31.07.2014 20:41, Thomas Abraham wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 31.07.2014 20:24, Thomas Abraham wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Well, the reason is simple: if you don't need to change something (i.e.
>> the change doesn't have any advantages), don't change it.
> 
> The advantage with using cpu clock would be that get_rate can obtain
> the cached rate whereas when reading div_core2 rate, the clock tree
> will have to be traversed to determine the rate.
> 

This is just one time printk at initialization, so still no real
benefits. :)

Well anyway, if you really don't want to undo this change, then I guess
I can live with it.

Best regards,
Tomasz