[PATCH] Reorganize STM32 clocks in order to prepare them for PLLI2S and PLLSAI

[Daniel Thompson]

On 10/10/16 10:56, Radosław Pietrzyk wrote:
> Hi,
> all plls have the same clock parent which is after a main divider.
> Currently the divider and multiplier are connected together within vco
> clock and therefore there is no chance to reuse the divider and clearly
> state where the conncetion "really" is. We can arrange all of them
> separately but than the divider will be hidden for all of them separately.

Quoting my last mail "I can see the value of naming the "/M" 
pre-division separately". In other words I agree with the idea of the patch.

To more explicitly state my review comments...

 > From: Radoslaw Pietrzyk <radoslaw.pietrzyk at gmail.com>

Please add a explanation of the problem and solution in the patch 
description.


 > Signed-off-by: Radoslaw Pietrzyk <radoslaw.pietrzyk at gmail.com>
 > ---
 >  drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c | 7 ++++---
 >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
 >
 > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c b/drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c
 > index 02d6810..1fd3eac 100644
 > --- a/drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c
 > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-stm32f4.c
 > @@ -245,9 +245,10 @@ static void stm32f4_rcc_register_pll(const char 
*hse_clk, const char *hsi_clk)
 >  	const char   *pllsrc = pllcfgr & BIT(22) ? hse_clk : hsi_clk;
 >  	unsigned long pllq   = (pllcfgr >> 24) & 0xf;
 >
 > -	clk_register_fixed_factor(NULL, "vco", pllsrc, 0, plln, pllm);
 > -	clk_register_fixed_factor(NULL, "pll", "vco", 0, 1, pllp);
 > -	clk_register_fixed_factor(NULL, "pll48", "vco", 0, 1, pllq);
 > +	clk_register_fixed_factor(NULL, "vco-div", pllsrc, 0, 1, pllm);

This strikes me as a bad name for a clock that is shared by all three 
PLLs (the vco being an internal component of the PLL) however since the 
clock is not named in the datasheet we are forced to invent a name [I 
suspect that's why I gave up trying to name it when I wrote the driver 
originally ;-) ].

Perhaps "pllin-prediv"?


 > +	clk_register_fixed_factor(NULL, "vco-mul", "vco-div", 0, plln, 1);

Why rename this clock? Multiplying is a what the vco (and its control 
circuits) is *for*. Tagging it "-mul" is meaningless.


Daniel.