[RFC PATCH 1/3] clk: imx: clk-fracn-gppll: Do not access num/denom register for integer PLL

[Peng Fan]

On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 05:00:09PM +0100, Alexander Stein wrote:
>Similar to clk_fracn_gppll_set_rate(), do not access the numerator and
>denominator register for integer PLL. Set MFD/MFN to 0 instead, so the
>table lookup will match.

For integer, the calculation will not take mfn/mfi into consideration.

Do you see this in test or just code inspection?

>See i.MX93 RM section 74.5.2.1 (PLL memory map) for ARMPLL, addresses
>0x40 and 0x50 are not listed/reserved.
>
>Signed-off-by: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein at ew.tq-group.com>
>---
> drivers/clk/imx/clk-fracn-gppll.c | 17 ++++++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-fracn-gppll.c b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-fracn-gppll.c
>index 85771afd4698a..3aef548110e25 100644
>--- a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-fracn-gppll.c
>+++ b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-fracn-gppll.c
>@@ -154,17 +154,24 @@ static unsigned long clk_fracn_gppll_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned lon
> {
> 	struct clk_fracn_gppll *pll = to_clk_fracn_gppll(hw);
> 	const struct imx_fracn_gppll_rate_table *rate_table = pll->rate_table;
>-	u32 pll_numerator, pll_denominator, pll_div;
>+	u32 pll_div;
> 	u32 mfi, mfn, mfd, rdiv, odiv;
> 	u64 fvco = parent_rate;
> 	long rate = 0;
> 	int i;
> 
>-	pll_numerator = readl_relaxed(pll->base + PLL_NUMERATOR);
>-	mfn = FIELD_GET(PLL_MFN_MASK, pll_numerator);
>+	if (pll->flags & CLK_FRACN_GPPLL_FRACN) {
>+		u32 pll_numerator, pll_denominator;
>+
>+		pll_numerator = readl_relaxed(pll->base + PLL_NUMERATOR);
>+		mfn = FIELD_GET(PLL_MFN_MASK, pll_numerator);
> 
>-	pll_denominator = readl_relaxed(pll->base + PLL_DENOMINATOR);
>-	mfd = FIELD_GET(PLL_MFD_MASK, pll_denominator);
>+		pll_denominator = readl_relaxed(pll->base + PLL_DENOMINATOR);
>+		mfd = FIELD_GET(PLL_MFD_MASK, pll_denominator);
>+	} else {
>+		mfd = 0;
>+		mfn = 0;
>+	}

Reading the registers for ARM PLL, should be 0 even RM not list.
But it is good that using a check here. So I am ok with this change.

Regards,
Peng

> 
> 	pll_div = readl_relaxed(pll->base + PLL_DIV);
> 	mfi = FIELD_GET(PLL_MFI_MASK, pll_div);
>-- 
>2.34.1
>