[PATCH v5 12/44] clk: davinci: Add platform information for TI DA850 PSC
David Lechner
david at lechnology.com
Wed Jan 17 11:08:34 PST 2018
On 01/17/2018 05:57 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 January 2018 10:51 PM, David Lechner wrote:
>> On 01/16/2018 08:00 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>> On Monday 08 January 2018 07:47 AM, David Lechner wrote:
>>>> +void __init da850_psc_clk_init(void __iomem *psc0, void __iomem *psc1)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct clk_onecell_data *clk_data;
>>>> +
>>>> + clk_data = davinci_psc_register_clocks(psc0, da850_psc0_info, 16);
>>>> + if (!clk_data)
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>>>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[3], NULL, "ti-aemif");
>>>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[3], "aemif", "davinci-nand.0");
>>>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[4], NULL, "spi_davinci.0");
>>>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[5], NULL, "da830-mmc.0");
>>>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[9], NULL, "serial8250.0");
>>>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[14], "arm", NULL);
>>>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[15], NULL, "davinci-rproc.0");
>>>> +
>>>> + clk_free_onecell_data(clk_data);
>>>> +
>>>> + clk_data = davinci_psc_register_clocks(psc1, da850_psc1_info, 32);
>>>> + if (!clk_data)
>>>> + return;
>>>> +
>>>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[1], "usb20_psc_clk", NULL);
>>>
>>> Is this con_id really needed now? Searching for "usb20_psc_clk" in your
>>> tree results in only this one hit.
>>
>> Yes, this is left over from previous attempts.
>>
>>>
>>>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[1], NULL, "musb-da8xx");
>>>> + clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clks[1], NULL, "cppi41-dmaengine");
>>>
>>> I guess multiple dev_id matches like these are another hurdle in moving
>>> them to davinci_psc_clk_info[] table? If its too cumbersome to keep
>>> multiple entries in the table, they can be handled as an exception at
>>> the end of processing the table? Still they are not the norm so I hope
>>> the normal case will still benefit.
>>
>> Right, as I mentioned in the reply to the previous patch, instead of
>> assigning a con_id and dev_id to each clock, we would need to assign
>> an array with a list of clocks. I think that would work better than
>> trying to handle the extras as an exception since there, on average,
>> about 5 per SoC.
>
> Okay, are you going to try this to see how it looks?
It is looking like this:
static const struct davinci_psc_clkdev_info emfia_clkdev[] __initconst = {
LPSC_CLKDEV(NULL, "ti-aemif"),
LPSC_CLKDEV("aemif", "davinci-nand.0"),
{ }
};
static const struct davinci_psc_clkdev_info spi0_clkdev[] __initconst = {
LPSC_CLKDEV(NULL, "spi_davinci.0"),
{ }
};
static const struct davinci_psc_clkdev_info mmcsd0_clkdev[] __initconst = {
LPSC_CLKDEV(NULL, "da830-mmc.0"),
{ }
};
static const struct davinci_psc_clkdev_info uart0_clkdev[] __initconst = {
LPSC_CLKDEV(NULL, "serial8250.0"),
{ }
};
static const struct davinci_psc_clkdev_info arm_clkdev[] __initconst = {
/*
* REVISIT: cpufreq-davinci should be modified to use dev_id and drop
* use of con_id.
*/
LPSC_CLKDEV("arm", NULL),
{ }
};
static const struct davinci_psc_clkdev_info dsp_clkdev[] __initconst = {
LPSC_CLKDEV(NULL, "davinci-rproc.0"),
{ }
};
static const struct davinci_psc_clk_info da850_psc0_info[] __initconst = {
LPSC(0, 0, tpcc0, pll0_sysclk2, NULL, LPSC_ALWAYS_ENABLED),
LPSC(1, 0, tptc0, pll0_sysclk2, NULL, LPSC_ALWAYS_ENABLED),
LPSC(2, 0, tptc1, pll0_sysclk2, NULL, LPSC_ALWAYS_ENABLED),
LPSC(3, 0, emifa, async1, emfia_clkdev, 0),
LPSC(4, 0, spi0, pll0_sysclk2, spi0_clkdev, 0),
LPSC(5, 0, mmcsd0, pll0_sysclk2, mmcsd0_clkdev, 0),
LPSC(6, 0, aintc, pll0_sysclk4, NULL, LPSC_ALWAYS_ENABLED),
LPSC(7, 0, arm_rom, pll0_sysclk2, NULL, LPSC_ALWAYS_ENABLED),
LPSC(9, 0, uart0, pll0_sysclk2, uart0_clkdev, 0),
LPSC(13, 0, pruss, pll0_sysclk2, NULL, 0),
LPSC(14, 0, arm, pll0_sysclk6, arm_clkdev, LPSC_ALWAYS_ENABLED |
LPSC_ARM_RATE),
LPSC(15, 1, dsp, pll0_sysclk1, dsp_clkdev, LPSC_FORCE |
LPSC_LOCAL_RESET),
{ }
};
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list