[PATCH v2 0/3] ARM: OMAP3: Fix McBSP2/3 hwmod setup for sidetone

Peter Ujfalusi peter.ujfalusi at ti.com
Wed Apr 13 04:57:28 PDT 2016

On 04/12/16 19:37, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi at ti.com> [160412 02:53]:
>> Tony,
>> On 04/12/16 00:28, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>>>> Then for the long term solution using
>>>>> PM runtime to block gating of the clock while sidetone is active is
>>>>> the way to go it seems.
>>>> Hrm, I think one of the main issue is that with pm_runtime we can not block
>>>> the clock gating, this is why legacy code uses enable_st_clock(), which will
>>>> call omap2_clk_deny_idle() or omap2_clk_allow_idle().
>>> I see. I think Tero wanted to export omap2_clk_allow_idle() and
>>> omap2_clk_deny_idle() for drivers to use. That should get discussed in
>>> the linux-clk list, probably best to use the pdata callbacks until
>>> the clock idling issue has been discussed.
>> It is already exported, used by the arch/arm/mach-omap2/mcbsp.c file.
> Oh but not with EXPORT_SYMBOL so not usable except for built-in code.
> Probably best to keep it that way IMO..

It is up to Tero if he want to keep omap2_clk_allow/deny_idle() only be usable
for built in code. It is there just because of OMAP3 McBSP2/3 sidetone support
on the other hand. It is a fair assumption that it could be used by the driver.

>> Why not to remove the callback for legacy also and handle it in the driver? It
>> is less ugly in my opinion.
>> Going via the pdata callback is just going to cement the current setup.
> Sure, maybe you can have a piece of built-in driver code to do that?

You mean something like:
int omap3_mcbsp23_ick_for_sidetone_force(struct clk *clk, bool force_on)
	if (!clk)
		return 0;

	if (force_on)
		return omap2_clk_deny_idle(clk);
		return omap2_clk_allow_idle(clk);

Looks similarly hackish as with the pdata callback, but if I were to choose,
the pdata callback might be a bit more polite hack if we do not look at how we
will have the pdata crafted for DT boot.

>> I have drafted out something which would be needed if we separate the McBSP-ST
>> from the McBSP driver. It is not pretty...
>> In the new omap3-mcbsp-st.h:
>> struct omap3_mcbspst;
>> struct omap_st_to_mcbsp_data {
>> 	bool (*is_enabled)(struct omap_st_to_mcbsp_data *st_data);
>> 	bool (*enable)(struct omap_st_to_mcbsp_data *st_data);
>> 	bool (*disable)(struct omap_st_to_mcbsp_data *st_data);
>> 	struct omap3_mcbspst *st_priv;
>> };
>> In the current omap-mcbsp.h:
>> #include <omap3-mcbsp-st.h>
>> ...
>> struct omap_mcbsp_to_st_data {
>> 	bool (*is_enabled)(struct omap_mcbsp_to_st_data *mcbsp_data);
>> 	bool (*iclk_idle)(struct omap_mcbsp_to_st_data *mcbsp_data, bool allow);
>> 	bool (*enable)(struct omap_mcbsp_to_st_data *mcbsp_data);
>> 	bool (*disable)(struct omap_mcbsp_to_st_data *mcbsp_data);
>> 	struct omap_mcbsp *mcbsp_priv;
>> };
>> struct omap_mcbsp_to_st_data *omap_mcbsp_st_register(
>> 						struct platform_device *pdev, /* McBSP pdev! probably? */
>> 						struct omap_st_to_mcbsp_data *st_data);
>> int omap_mcbsp_st_unregister(struct omap_st_to_mcbsp_data *st_data);
>> #else
>> static inline int omap_mcbsp_st_register(struct platform_device *pdev,
>> 					 struct omap_st_to_mcbsp_data *st_data)
>> {
>> 	return -ENODEV;
>> }
>> static inline int omap_mcbsp_st_unregister(struct omap_st_to_mcbsp_data *st_data)
>> {
>> 	return 0;
>> }
>> #endif
>> Since the ST would be separate driver, it should create the needed ALSA
>> controls as well, probably I need to pass something else here and there.
>> But, in this setup it would be possible to remove the ST driver while the
>> McBSP and the sound card is up, which means we must be able to remove
>> kcontrols runtime, probably there is a way, but not sure about this.
>> There will be issues like this we have not prepared for I'm sure if we do
>> dramatic change to the simple implementation we have right now.
> Best to stick to incremental improvments I think..

If we were to split the McBSP driver into half - not literally as the ST
support has small amount of code right now, we would consider all possibility
to not introduce regression and keep things working along the way. There will
be a point were the code need to be shuffled..

>> I have reasonably clean patches (6 of them) on top of this three which would
>> remove the arch code for the iclk handling and implements it in the mcbsp
>> driver w/o changing the architecture of the McBSP driver itself. Both DT and
>> legacy boot works. The only part I was not happy about the one where I looked
>> up the mcbsp2/3_ick, but I think I have found much cleaner way to do it
>> (meaning that the code will not look hackish at all).
>> If you want to see, I can make this change and I can send the whole thing as
>> RFC and continue the discussion around that?
> Sure, especially if that helps with splitting up the modules too.

To start with the hwmod data is wrong for mcbsp2/3 mcbsp2/3_sidetone:
static struct omap_hwmod omap3xxx_mcbsp2_hwmod = {
	.name		= "mcbsp2",
	.class		= &omap3xxx_mcbsp_hwmod_class,
	.mpu_irqs	= omap3xxx_mcbsp2_irqs,
	.sdma_reqs	= omap2_mcbsp2_sdma_reqs,
	.main_clk	= "mcbsp2_fck",
	.prcm		= {
		.omap2 = {
			.prcm_reg_id = 1,
			.module_bit = OMAP3430_EN_MCBSP2_SHIFT,
			.module_offs = OMAP3430_PER_MOD,
			.idlest_reg_id = 1,
			.idlest_idle_bit = OMAP3430_ST_MCBSP2_SHIFT,
	.opt_clks	= mcbsp234_opt_clks,
	.opt_clks_cnt	= ARRAY_SIZE(mcbsp234_opt_clks),
	.dev_attr	= &omap34xx_mcbsp2_dev_attr,

static struct omap_hwmod omap3xxx_mcbsp2_sidetone_hwmod = {
	.name		= "mcbsp2_sidetone",
	.class		= &omap3xxx_mcbsp_sidetone_hwmod_class,
	.mpu_irqs	= omap3xxx_mcbsp2_sidetone_irqs,
	.main_clk	= "mcbsp2_fck",
	.prcm		= {
		.omap2 = {
			.prcm_reg_id = 1,
			 .module_bit = OMAP3430_EN_MCBSP2_SHIFT,
			.module_offs = OMAP3430_PER_MOD,
			.idlest_reg_id = 1,
			.idlest_idle_bit = OMAP3430_ST_MCBSP2_SHIFT,

The McBSP2_ST main_clk is mcbsp2_ick, not mcbsp2_fck (ch in
OMAP36xx TRM).
The sidetone should not have prcm section at all as it does not have control
over it's clocks in that level. Giving the same PRCM registers and bits for
both McBSP and it's sidetone is wrong. What should be expected if McBSP is
enabled and we disable the ST via pm_runtime? Will the hwmod toggle bits in
PRCM? If it does, the McBSP will looses it's clocks...

While the McBSP and ST regions are different, the ST is part of the McBSP from
PRCM point of view so not sure how this could be worked around with separated


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list