[PATCH v2 2/2] clk: hi6220: initialize UART1 clock to 150MHz

[Jorge Ramirez]

On 07/08/2016 03:48 AM, Michael Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Jorge Ramirez (2016-07-07 01:55:05)
>> On 07/07/2016 08:31 AM, Jorge Ramirez wrote:
>>> On 07/06/2016 11:43 PM, Michael Turquette wrote:
>>>> Quoting Guodong Xu (2016-06-29 01:45:55)
>>>>>> From: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz<jorge.ramirez-ortiz at linaro.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Early at boot, during the sys_clk initialization, make sure UART1 uses
>>>>>> the higher frequency clock, 150MHz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This enables support for higher baud rates (up to 3Mbps) in UART1,
>>>>> which
>>>>>> is required by faster bluetooth transfers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> v2: use clk_set_rate() to propergate clock settings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz<jorge.ramirez-ortiz at linaro.org>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Guodong Xu<guodong.xu at linaro.org>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>   drivers/clk/hisilicon/clk-hi6220.c | 4 ++++
>>>>>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/hisilicon/clk-hi6220.c
>>>>> b/drivers/clk/hisilicon/clk-hi6220.c
>>>>>> index a36ffcb..631c56f 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/clk/hisilicon/clk-hi6220.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/hisilicon/clk-hi6220.c
>>>>>> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>>>>>>   >  #include <linux/kernel.h>
>>>>>>   #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/clk.h>
>>>>>>   #include <linux/clkdev.h>
>>>>>>   #include <linux/io.h>
>>>>>>   #include <linux/of.h>
>>>>>> @@ -192,6 +193,9 @@ static void __init hi6220_clk_sys_init(struct
>>>>> device_node *np)
>>>>>>   > hi6220_clk_register_divider(hi6220_div_clks_sys,
>>>>>>                          ARRAY_SIZE(hi6220_div_clks_sys), clk_data);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +       if (clk_set_rate(clk_data->clk_data.clks[HI6220_UART1_SRC],
>>>>> 150000000))
>>>>>> +               pr_err("failed to set uart1 clock rate\n");
>>>> Why doesn't the UART driver call clk_get and then clk_set_rate on this
>>>> clock? Why do it in the clk provider driver?
>>> yes that was my initial choice as well; in the end I opted to do it in
>>> the clock driver because of it being a value that will not have to
>>> ever change for the SoC and - maybe more importantly- because of not
>>> having a DT property available for the primecell pl011 uart where to
>>> specify the value (so I thought this was a less intrusive
>>> implementation).
>>>
>>>
>> I have v3 ready (changes done in amba-pl011.c and devicetree/bindings)
>> please let me know if I should send those instead.
> Yes, please do. Are you using the clock-assigned-rates property?

oops (was using clock-frequency), yes it is now. thanks will send it 
shortly.