[PATCH v6 1/6] clk: iproc: define Broadcom iProc clock binding
Ray Jui
rjui at broadcom.com
Mon Apr 13 12:40:17 PDT 2015
Hi Mike,
On 4/12/2015 11:02 PM, Michael Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Ray Jui (2015-04-12 21:08:32)
>>
>>
>> On 4/10/2015 5:12 PM, Michael Turquette wrote:
>>> Quoting Ray Jui (2015-03-17 22:45:17)
>>>> Document the device tree binding for Broadcom iProc architecture based
>>>> clock controller
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <rjui at broadcom.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <sbranden at broadcom.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> .../bindings/clock/brcm,iproc-clocks.txt | 171 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 171 insertions(+)
>>>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/brcm,iproc-clocks.txt
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/brcm,iproc-clocks.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/brcm,iproc-clocks.txt
>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>> index 0000000..bf2316b
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/brcm,iproc-clocks.txt
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
>>>> +Broadcom iProc Family Clocks
>>>> +
>>>> +This binding uses the common clock binding:
>>>> + Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt
>>>> +
>>>> +The iProc clock controller manages clocks that are common to the iProc family.
>>>> +An SoC from the iProc family may have several PPLs, e.g., ARMPLL, GENPLL,
>>>> +LCPLL0, MIPIPLL, and etc., all derived from an onboard crystal. Each PLL
>>>> +comprises of several leaf clocks
>>>> +
>>>> +Required properties for PLLs:
>>>> +- compatible:
>>>> + Should have a value of the form "brcm,<soc>-<pll>". For example, GENPLL on
>>>> +Cygnus has a compatible string of "brcm,cygnus-genpll"
>>>> +
>>>> +- #clock-cells:
>>>> + Must be <0>
>>>> +
>>>> +- reg:
>>>> + Define the base and range of the I/O address space that contain the iProc
>>>> +clock control registers required for the PLL
>>>> +
>>>> +- clocks:
>>>> + The input parent clock phandle for the PLL. For all iProc PLLs, this is an
>>>> +onboard crystal with a fixed rate
>>>> +
>>>> +Example:
>>>> +
>>>> + osc: oscillator {
>>>> + #clock-cells = <0>;
>>>> + compatible = "fixed-clock";
>>>> + clock-frequency = <25000000>;
>>>> + };
>>>> +
>>>> + genpll: genpll {
>>>> + #clock-cells = <0>;
>>>> + compatible = "brcm,cygnus-genpll";
>>>> + reg = <0x0301d000 0x2c>,
>>>> + <0x0301c020 0x4>;
>>>> + clocks = <&osc>;
>>>> + };
>>>> +
>>>> +Required properties for leaf clocks of a PLL:
>>>> +
>>>> +- compatible:
>>>> + Should have a value of the form "brcm,<soc>-<pll>-clk". For example, leaf
>>>> +clocks derived from the GENPLL on Cygnus SoC have a compatible string of
>>>> +"brcm,cygnus-genpll-clk"
>>>> +
>>>> +- #clock-cells:
>>>> + Have a value of <1> since there are more than 1 leaf clock of a
>>>> +given PLL
>>>> +
>>>> +- reg:
>>>> + Define the base and range of the I/O address space that contain the iProc
>>>> +clock control registers required for the PLL leaf clocks
>>>> +
>>>> +- clocks:
>>>> + The input parent PLL phandle for the leaf clock
>>>> +
>>>> +- clock-output-names:
>>>> + An ordered list of strings defining the names of the leaf clocks
>>>> +
>>>> +Example:
>>>> +
>>>> + genpll: genpll {
>>>> + #clock-cells = <0>;
>>>> + compatible = "brcm,cygnus-genpll";
>>>> + reg = <0x0301d000 0x2c>,
>>>> + <0x0301c020 0x4>;
>>>> + clocks = <&osc>;
>>>> + };
>>>> +
>>>> + genpll_clks: genpll_clks {
>>>> + #clock-cells = <1>;
>>>> + compatible = "brcm,cygnus-genpll-clk";
>>>> + reg = <0x0301d000 0x2c>;
>>>> + clocks = <&genpll>;
>>>> + clock-output-names = "axi21", "250mhz", "ihost_sys",
>>>> + "enet_sw", "audio_125", "can";
>>>> + };
>>>
>>> Hi Ray,
>>>
>>> Thanks for submitting the patch. It was nice meeting you at ELC as well.
>>>
>>> This binding doesn't conform to the norms for clock bindings. It looks
>>> like for each type of controllable clock node (e.g. pll, leaf clock,
>>> etc) you have a dts node. Looking at the above example it seems that
>>> those two nodes (genpll and genpll_clks) share the same register.
>>>
>>> /me checks patch #5
>>>
>>> Yup, you re-use the same register address for the *pll and *pll_clks
>>> nodes. I'm not a DT expert but I think this is considered Wrong.
>>>
>>> More generally your clock dt binding should be modeling the hardware in
>>> terms of IP blocks. If you have a clock generator IP block it may
>>> control many clock bits and output many clock signals. E.g. for your
>>> hardware (based only on the addresses in patch #5 and not having seen
>>> any data manual) I will hazard a guess that the genpll, lcpll and asiu
>>> clocks are all part of the same IP block.
>>
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> In fact, lcpll, genpll, mipipll are similar but DIFFERENT IP blocks, and
>> asiu is completely different from any of them. All of these plls are
>> unique and have their own register banks, as you can see from the
>> bcm-cygnus-clock.dtsi file. Therefore, I think it's totally correct and
>> actually necessary to represent each of them with a separate device node.
>
> OK, that makes sense to me, if those registers live in addresses ranges
> which correspond to different IP blocks.
>
>>
>> Regarding the relationship between a PLL clock and its leaf clocks:
>> Taking the genpll as an example, physically they are connected as:
>>
>> xtal -> genpll -> axi21, 250mhz, ihost_sys, ...
>>
>> The 25 MHz crystal feeds to the genpll, and the genpll generates 6
>> different leaf clocks including axi21, 250mhz, ihost_sys, and etc. One
>> can choose to set the genpll's vco to one frequency, and based on that
>> frequency, different leaf clock frequencies can be generated with their
>> own post divider.
>>
>> Therefore, I think it makes sense to represent xtal, genpll, genpll_clks
>> (including axi21, 250mhz, ihost_sys, and etc) each with a unique device
>> node, and genpll is the parent of these leaf clocks. Basically the
>> device nodes and the way how the "clocks" phandle is used represent the
>> hierarchy of the clock architecture within Cygnus (and in the future
>> other iProc SoCs). Does that make sense?
>
> This doesn't make sense to me. If I understand correctly, the register
> range that controls the post-divider clock (e.g. axi21) is the same
> register range that control's genpll. This is a reasonable indicator to
> me that the leaf clocks are part of the same clock generator IP block as
> the PLL controls. As such they should be on node.
>
>>
>> Regarding the register address overlapping, again, taking genpll as an
>> example, the genpll and the genpll_clks actually never access the same
>> set of registers, but the registers are sort of scattered within one
>> bank, i.e., on Cygnus, genpll uses registers at offset 0x0, 0x8 ~ 0x1c,
>> and genpll_clks uses registers at offset 0x4, 0x20 - 0x24.
>
> Sure, my argument above doesn't hinge on the fact that the pll and child
> clocks use the exact same register. It still looks to me like *pll and
> it's child dividers belong in the same IP block. Is there an open data
> sheet or technical reference manual I can look at for this part? That is
> the best way to put my concerns at ease ;-)
>
> Looking over your binding again, it looks like your nodes are divided
> conveniently for the different clock types (e.g. pll versus
> post-divider), but our goal with DT is to accurately describe the
> hardware, not the C structures.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
Yes, the genpll and genpll_clks are controlled by the same IP block. I
can make the change to combine them to use one DT node. But before doing
that, I just need to get one thing clarified with you. In SW, the pll
and its leaf clocks will still be registered as separate two clock
providers, since we need to be able to configure the PLL vco frequency
and its leaf clock frequencies separately. The pll will be the parent of
its leaf clocks, and the leaf clocks will be used by various peripherals.
I plan to have the combined DT looks like this:
genpll_clks: genpll_clks {
#clock-cells = <1>;
compatible = "brcm,cygnus-genpll-clk";
reg = <0x0301d000 0x2c>;
assigned-clocks = <&genpll_clks>;
/* this sets the PLL rate at the time when the PLL clock is
registered */
assigned-clock-rates = <4000000000>;
clocks = <&osc>;
clock-output-names = "axi21", "250mhz", "ihost_sys", "enet_sw",
"audio_125", "can";
};
peripheralA: peripheralA {
/* use the first leaf clock of genpll */
clocks = <&genpll_clks 0>;
clock-frequency = <100000000>;
};
If we register both the genpll and its leaf clocks to the clock
framework as two separate clock providers, would the above DT entries
still work? For example, peripheralA refers to the phandle of
genpll_clks, but how does the clock framework know to link it to the pll
clock or the leaf clock?
Thanks,
Ray
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list