[PATCH v2 6/6] arm64: dts: berlin4ct: add pll and clock nodes

[Sebastian Hesselbarth]

On 24.11.2015 03:35, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 16:54:44 +0800
> Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 09:30:42 +0100
>> Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>>> On 23.11.2015 08:21, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 22:06:59 +0100
>>>> Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>>>>> On 20.11.2015 09:42, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>>>>>> Add syspll, mempll, cpupll, gateclk and berlin-clk nodes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang at marvell.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>> [...]
>>>>>> +		syspll: syspll {
>>>>>> +			compatible = "marvell,berlin-pll";
>>>>>> +			reg = <0xea0200 0x14>, <0xea0710 4>;
>>>>>> +			#clock-cells = <0>;
>>>>>> +			clocks = <&osc>;
>>>>>> +			bypass-shift = /bits/ 8 <0>;
>>>>>> +		};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		gateclk: gateclk {
>>>>>> +			compatible = "marvell,berlin4ct-gateclk";
>>>>>> +			reg = <0xea0700 4>;
>>>>>> +			#clock-cells = <1>;
>>>>>> +		};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +		clk: clk {
>>>>>> +			compatible = "marvell,berlin4ct-clk";
>>>>>> +			reg = <0xea0720 0x144>;
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the reg ranges, I'd say that they are all clock related
>>>>> and pretty close to each other:
>>>>>
>>>>> gateclk: reg = <0xea0700 4>;
>>>>> bypass:  reg = <0xea0710 4>;
>>>>> clk:     reg = <0xea0720 0x144>;
>>>>
>>>> Although these ranges sit close, but we should represent HW structure as you
>>>> said.
>>>
>>> Then how do you argue that you have to share the gate clock register
>>> with every PLL? The answer is quite simple: You are not separating by
>>> HW either but existing SW API.
>>
>> No, PLLs don't share register any more. You can find what all clock nodes will
>> look like in:

Jisheng,

referring to the sunxi clock related thread, I am glad you finally
picked up the idea of merging clock nodes. Before you start reworking
bg4 clocks, I think I should be a little bit more clear about what I
expect to be the outcome.

When I said "one single clock complex node", I was referring to the
clocks located within the system-controller reg region, i.e. those at
0xea0000. With bg2x we came to the conclusion that those registers
cannot be not cleanly separated by functions, so we decided to have
a single system-controller simple-mfd node with sub-nodes for
pinctrl, clock, reset, and whatever we will find there in the future.

Please also follow this scheme for bg4 because when you start looking
at reset, you'll likely see the same issues we were facing: Either you
have a reset controller node with a plethora of reg property entries
or you constantly undermine the concept of requested resources by using
of_iomap().

Using simple-mfd is a compromise between detailed HW description and
usability. It will also automatically deal with concurrent accesses to
the same register for e.g. clock and reset because simple-mfd and syscon
install an access lock for the reg region. Even though there may be no
real concurrent accesses to the same register, it does no real harm
because we are locking resisters that aren't supposed to be used in
high-speed applications. Some of them are touched once at boot, most
of them are never touched by Linux at all.

For the other PLLs at <0x922000 0x14> and <0x940034 0x14>, I do accept
that they are not part of the system-controller sub-node. For the short
run, I would accept separate nodes for the PLLs alone, but on the long
run they should be hidden within the functional node they belong to,
i.e. mempll should be a clock provided by some memory-controller node.
As soon as you look at power saving modes for the memory-controller,
you would need access to memory-controller register _and_ mempll anyway.

We do have our DT tagged unstable, so we still can easily revert our
limited view of some nodes later.

BTW, if the clock provided by mempll is used to generate peripheral
clocks that are dealt with in the sysctrl clock complex, you should,
of course, expose that relation in DT, e.g.:

sysctrl: system-controller {
	reg = <0xea0700 0xfoo>;

	sysclk: clock {
		#clock-cells = <1>;
		clocks = <&osc>, <&memctrl 0>;
		clock-names = "osc", "mempll";
	};
};

memctrl: memory-controller {
	reg = <0x920000 0xbar>;
	/*
	 * clock-cells can also be 0
	 * if there is no other clock provided
	 */
	#clock-cells = <1>;

	clocks = <&osc>;
	clock-names = "osc";
};

some-peripheral: bla {
	clocks = <&sysclk SOME_PERIPHERAL_CLOCK_ID>;
};

Sebastian

>>> If you would really want to just describe the HW, then you'd have to
>>> have a single node for _all_ clocks that get controlled by 0xea0700/0x4,
>>> feed some 32+ clocks into the node, and out again. Obviously, this
>>> isn't what we want, right?
>>
>> I represented the HW by "kind", for example, gateclks, common-clks, pllclk.
>> And let common PLLs follow this rule as well:
>>
>> one node for all common plls
>>
>> reg <0x922000 0x14>, <0x940034 0x14>, <0xea0200 0x14>
>>
>>>
>>> So, the idea of berlin2 sysctrl nodes (and similar other SoCs) is: Some
>>> SoCs just dump some functions into a bunch of registers with no
>>> particular order. We'd never find a good representation for that in DT,
>>> so we don't bother to try but let the driver implementation deal with
>>> the mess. Using "simple-mfd" is a nice solution to scattered registers
>>> please have a look at it and come up with a cleaner separation for bg4
>>> clock.
>>>
>>>> First of all, let me describe the clks/plls in BG4CT. BG4CT contains:
>>>>
>>>> two kinds of PLL: normal PLL and AVPLL. These PLLs are put with their users
>>>> together. For example: mempll pll registers <0xf7940034, 0x14> is put together
>>>> with mem controller registers. AVPLL control registers are put with AV devices.
>>>
>>> Why didn't you choose to have a memory-controller node that provides
>>> mempll clock then? I am open to having multiple nodes providing clocks
>>> but having a node for every clock in any subsystem is something I'll
>>> not even think about.
>>
>> OK. As you said, "SoCs just dump some functions into a bunch of registers with
>> no particular order", BG4CT is now cleaner, all common-clks are put together,
>> gate-clks are put together, pllclks are put together, only the common PLLs
>> are dumped here and there. So how about representing the HW by "kind", one
>> node for common plls, one node for gateclks, one node for common clks and
>> one node for pllclks?
>>
>>                  pll: pll {
>>                          compatible = "marvell,berlin4ct-pll";
>>                          reg = <0x922000 0x14>, <0x940034 0x14>, <0xea0200 0x14>
>>                          #clock-cells = <0>;
>
> should be "#clock-cells = <1>;"
>
>>                          clocks = <&osc>;
>>                  };
>>
>> 		pllclk: pllclk {
>>                          compatible = "marvell,berlin4ct-pllclk";
>>                          reg = <0xea0710 4>
>>                          #clock-cells = <1>;
>> 		};
>>
>>                  gateclk: gateclk {
>>                          compatible = "marvell,berlin4ct-gateclk";
>>                          reg = <0xea0700 4>;
>>                          #clock-cells = <1>;
>>                  };
>>
>>                  clk: clk {
>>                          compatible = "marvell,berlin4ct-clk";
>>                          reg = <0xea0720 0x144>;
>>                          #clock-cells = <1>;
>>                          clocks = <&pllclk SYSPLLCLK>;
>>                  };
>>
>
> there's no a node for every clock with this proposal, all clks/plls are separated
> by "kind". Is this OK for you?
>
> thanks
>